Changes sound good. Note that the normal probability distribution uses
the abbreviation stddev
(https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/random/normal_distribution).

Quoting Michael Wong via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>:

> Hi all, here is some of the key action items thanks to Larry Lewis's notes
> on the stats feedback from Oleksandr's comment review
>
> 1) change var to variance
>
> 2) change stdev to standard_deviation
>
> 3) remove quantiles for the initial paper
>
> 4) have median return a value?which could be a value that?s not in the data
>
> Vote on P2376R0 Comments on EH on Stats from Johan Lundberg: is there
> general feeling this is a good direction
>
> SF WF N WA SA
>
> 7/5/2/0/0
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:37 AM Guy Cpp via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> "I'm absolutely styling"
>>
>> Fantastic.
>>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 15:12, Michael Wong via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Attendees:
>>> Michael Wong
>>> Richard Dosselmann
>>> Will Wray
>>> Oleksandr Koval
>>> Scott Moe
>>> Scott McMillan
>>> René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
>>> Larry Lewis
>>> Phil Ratzloff
>>> Joe Sachs
>>> Luke D'Alessandro
>>> Andrew Lumsdaine
>>> Ritwik Dubey
>>> Johan Lundberg
>>> Guy Davidson
>>> jonan lundberg (desktop)
>>> Marco Foco
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> 14:01:47 Hi everybody. Can you guys hear me.
>>> 14:01:53 Alright, sounds good.
>>> 14:01:57 Let me see if I can get him, he could hear something here well.
>>> 14:02:08 Okay,
>>> 14:02:15 looks like this version of zoom now is doing automatic
>>> transcription for us. Yes, I'm experimenting with this, I enabled it so
>>> that I can see how it works and see if this is something we want in a cell
>>> meetings.
>>> 14:02:29 I tried it yesterday with sg 14.
>>> 14:02:41 And it worked really, I mean the word translated was really good
>>> and I actually went back and started cleaning up words, although I don't
>>> believe it understand anything other than English.
>>> 14:02:45 Bonjour.
>>> 14:02:46 It shouldn't.
>>> 14:02:46 It shouldn't go me of mine here as to me allied Nicole my Yeah.
>>> 14:02:53 No, it doesn't understand Chinese German or French any other
>>> language.
>>> 14:02:58 Language.
>>> 14:03:05 We all have to store smells
>>> 14:03:05 bad.
>>> 14:03:09 bad. I can try Spanish if you want. Yeah, Go for it.
>>> 14:03:14 All at all those sucky
>>> 14:03:20 piano.
>>> 14:03:22 I cannot stand a student doesn't seem to get it so
>>> 14:03:29 so much fun we have, we can have with an automatic translator.
>>> 14:03:37 Oh, my God.
>>> 14:03:40 Hey guys, I'm, I'm going to be in a little bit of trouble
>>> chairing this call. And I wonder if I can prevail on somebody to chair it
>>> for me. And maybe guy, because he's had a little bit of experience yes
>>> actually a lot of experience yesterday with 27 people.
>>> 14:03:57 Would you be able to do another cheering for me. I'm afraid I'm
>>> having my dinner right now.
>>> 14:04:06 I ordinarily I would actually be charged by.
>>> 14:04:09 I'm absolutely styling.
>>> 14:04:14 I could take over in half an hour. No, no it's okay I don't look
>>> at other people maybe Renee on, or Larry, I unfortunately have to work at
>>> the same time.
>>> 14:04:24 Okay, let's see I think I'll Richard he's been doing this for a
>>> while.
>>> 14:04:29 I would love to but sadly I actually have another meeting
>>> starting in an hour and a half.
>>> 14:04:34 Fortunate reality the online world. Understood.
>>> 14:04:37 Anyone else Larry, would you be interested.
>>> 14:04:47 I'd be, can you hear me. Yeah. Okay, I'd be happy to do it but I
>>> have no idea what to do.
>>> 14:04:47 This that there is an agenda that I put out and all you have to
>>> do is share screen on it and then drive it along the way.
>>> 14:04:55 Well that may be harder than you think.
>>> 14:04:57 This. There's always time to learn so I'm going to tell you what
>>> I'll do this first of all make your calls and see if that'll enable a whole
>>> bunch of new buttons for you.
>>> 14:05:09 This is Larry is going to be presenting some, some stuff to you
>>> right, of course, yes, he will have to, you know, definitely have to have
>>> to do that so actually I'm going to enable share screen for everybody so
>>> that they can do that.
>>> 14:05:21 so I think today's main agenda is we got some really valuable
>>> feedback from a couple of people Alexander's on, I think. And who else was
>>> giving feedback to, to, to your document on stats.
>>> 14:05:39 So stats has not been reported yet so oh I should actually go
>>> through the normal process while Larry is setting up.
>>> 14:05:58 Yeah, I'm gonna go find my, please go find my agenda document
>>> that I sent out the agenda email I sent out yesterday was Tuesday. It will
>>> be in your email somewhere.
>>> 14:06:00 Yeah I forwarded that on to you learn.
>>> 14:06:03 Okay, hold on.
>>> 14:06:04 Okay, so.
>>> 14:06:08 Okay. It starts out with roll call participants adopted Jen
>>> Yeah, yeah. So you shared screen on that try sharing screen on that
>>> document on your computer.
>>> 14:06:16 Wait, wait a second, I'm looking at that.
>>> 14:06:26 Okay, so what I'll do is I'll do the roll call. Now since we are
>>> already keeping track of roll call on the zoom report. I don't actually
>>> have to write anybody's names down but I will call them out I see Larry
>>> lewis i see guy Davison I see Joe Sachs, I
>>> 14:06:35 see Johan Lindbergh I see Alexander Coble I see Phil rats LA I
>>> see Renee Rivera, I see Richard awesome and I see Scott McMillan, I see.
>>> 14:06:44 Scott Moore, I see will Ray and Michael long, and this is the
>>> May 13 sG 19 call.
>>> 14:06:55 So there's also a list of ISO code of conduct guidelines at the
>>> top, that people are instructed to read and to acquaint themselves,
>>> basically all it says is be nice, be decent to each other.
>>> 14:07:10 and then we'll all get along.
>>> 14:07:16 I think for today's call. We are mostly going to be going
>>> through the feedback for Richard Dawson in some stats paper which, which
>>> was published on a cell and but it has not been scheduled yet for LEWG, but
>>> they know about it, they have a lot of things
>>> 14:07:32 on their plate so they're just waiting to schedule it. But in
>>> the meantime, there's actual feedback from people read the paper, which is
>>> great, is we don't, we can actually make some adjustments on the fly
>>> already, and that's fine.
>>> 14:07:46 Sorry wasn't to the reinforcement learning.
>>> 14:07:48 And there's also reinforcement learning Yep, that's right, I'm
>>> going to get to that. And so, but I don't know if Larry and these guys have
>>> prepared anything yet.
>>> 14:07:59 But something, actually, which I have, which is, is a work in
>>> progress, but which I definitely want to discuss a little bit. So, I'll do
>>> that at the end after we get through all of those.
>>> 14:08:11 So I think it's more important to get through the feedbacks
>>> right away. Be from Johan Lindbergh and from Alexandra Kobo.
>>> 14:08:20 And then we can end up, go I suspect this meeting might be
>>> short, it'll probably be an hour anyway. So, and then after that we will do
>>> the reinforcement learning.
>>> 14:08:28 If the schedule is good with you guys, if that's good with you,
>>> Larry.
>>> 14:08:32 Yeah.
>>> 14:08:35 So, I have up the wonderful application known as Notepad.
>>> 14:08:41 Got it.
>>> 14:08:43 She wanted me to give you a shot of taking the screen here.
>>> 14:08:47 Well, you probably don't need to now because I think, Richard
>>> will probably bring up was paper. And then he can he can listen to the
>>> feedbacks, and then you just have to take notes.
>>> 14:08:59 Go, Richard. Are you ready to, to bring up the paper.
>>> 14:09:05 I can, can I just have a couple of months grab some blank paper
>>> notes, taking the lead myself I'll come back in about five minutes. Yeah,
>>> go ahead and explain the corner the procedure to everything here then.
>>> 14:09:10 Okay, so I will do that now.
>>> 14:09:18 So guys, um, we got feedback from Johan, and from Alexander,
>>> Alexander I don't think you've been on this call before Would you like to
>>> introduce yourself.
>>> 14:09:31 Yeah, I'm just developer who tried to implement those steps
>>> proposal so I am actually I'm not familiar with the whole process of like
>>> how committed works.
>>> 14:09:43 Okay.
>>> 14:09:44 Thank you very much uu, the bread and butter of how committee
>>> works is, is based depending on people like you who can do these kinds of
>>> things.
>>> 14:09:54 And Johan also gave feedback as well too. So I'll explain a
>>> little bit.
>>> 14:10:00 This is actually a little bit of an unusual group sg 19 machine
>>> learning is a outreach group, because we don't have the expertise in the
>>> committee in meaning, there is only a very few machine learning, experts
>>> are that kind in the committee.
>>> 14:10:15 We are permitted to outreach to other people who are available,
>>> much more specialist in that domain. So as a result, whereas normally you
>>> would need to do jump through all kinds of hoops to get into the committee
>>> be a member, your national body member.
>>> 14:10:30 This is all dispense with and.
>>> 14:10:33 And now since we have this pandemic thing, we can definitely do
>>> a lot of things live. I mean sorry not live but on zoom call, which means
>>> that you don't have to pay money now even better because in the past you
>>> might have to have to pay money for a trip
>>> 14:10:44 to got to show up and all that stuff, or the very least, talk to
>>> somebody who goes there, and then have them proxy you while you can't
>>> attend because you have a job and on and you know I'm totally
>>> understandable.
>>> 14:10:57 So, having said that, this is actually the perfect time to do
>>> something like this where we can just get the feedback, look at it and then
>>> see what we can do to adjust that.
>>> 14:11:06 Having said that, though, you could definitely join your own
>>> national committee.
>>> 14:11:11 I'll quickly explain how that works because actually, I just
>>> answered a question from from, Kate.
>>> 14:11:20 On one of guys books I think about how committees work so let me
>>> just explain the committee's that ISO committees work like the United
>>> Nations, they are, they have their national delegations except get sent to
>>> them.
>>> 14:11:34 So each country has its own delegation.
>>> 14:11:38 And there's a head of delegation. So Canada is called Standards
>>> Council of Canada, the UK is called British Standards Institute, the Asana.
>>> 14:11:48 The American is called insights, or used to be called and see if
>>> there's some standards is still quite antsy.
>>> 14:11:59 But each country has its own, but not every country belongs to
>>> the ISO standard has not every country has a standard development
>>> organization. Most do.
>>> 14:12:06 And even if they haven't a standard development organization or
>>> an organization that sto might not have joined the c++ part. They might
>>> have joined what other things like elevators and and railroads, but they
>>> didn't join the c++ part.
>>> 14:12:18 So, depending on how deep you want to dive into this rabbit
>>> hole, you could go through and try to figure out, you know, which country
>>> it is that you belong to, and can do do they have an SEO, and they have an
>>> SEO does that as do.
>>> 14:12:35 That is still join the group that's relevant for c++.
>>> 14:12:40 You can do that, but I can also just tell you right now by just
>>> going to displace.
>>> 14:12:44 Okay, I'll quickly share my screen here.
>>> 14:12:49 Okay. If you go to I did you just search for a sales.
>>> 14:12:54 sc 22, which is our parent body, you'll find all the parts that
>>> belongs to the all the working groups that belongs to this, and under this
>>> thing that says participating members if you click on that you'll find all
>>> the countries that have participation
>>> 14:13:08 status and the name of the acronym of countries SPL.
>>> 14:13:13 And you'll see that these guys are participating which means
>>> they vote. And these guys are observing, which means they don't get to vote
>>> but they can show up.
>>> 14:13:22 If your country is not on any of these. That means you don't
>>> either you don't have an SEO, or your SEO never bothered to join c++, which
>>> means either way it means a huge amount of work for you to try to get
>>> involved, unless you can talk to somebody who
>>> 14:13:37 was a friendly country or something like someone like us and
>>> just go directly in. So we're trying to make those things a lot easier.
>>> Okay.
>>> 14:13:47 guy Davidson Davison Go ahead.
>>> 14:13:50 Guy Davison Go ahead. Yeah, so it might be worth mentioning that
>>> whilst it might seem like a huge amount of work.
>>> 14:13:58 It can happen quite smoothly and we only have to look at how to
>>> discover who turned up at CVP con in 2000 and right now I think it was an
>>> interesting paper on CTR and then two years later she formed and is now
>>> chairing the Czech national body.
>>> 14:14:14 Yeah, but some countries, it's not a huge amount of work for
>>> some countries, it can be a huge amount of work. and lately it's getting a
>>> lot easier. So, all Xander depending on which country you're from.
>>> 14:14:26 If you see any of these countries on your list, then you could
>>> actually join. Now having said that they are also more conditions, being
>>> part of a delegation.
>>> 14:14:35 As far as I can tell, is not doesn't necessarily mean your
>>> country of birth. I've been particularly permissive in terms of my
>>> definition I for Canada, it's basically if you.
>>> 14:14:59 We have you live here.
>>> 14:14:50 You were born, or you were born here, or your home or your
>>> company is here.
>>> 14:15:01 So those are three ways you could actually belong to Canada.
>>> 14:15:05 So I don't know which, which country are you in Alexandra.
>>> 14:15:09 Yeah, I'm in the Ukraine, it's actually in the list, and I
>>> wanted to clarify that these countries from the left side, they actually
>>> participants in the c++ so Commedia.
>>> 14:15:21 OK, so the participating countries are participating at all
>>> level of sc 22.
>>> 14:15:30 So, we don't talk about the working group levels so you can join
>>> any of these working groups within se 22 So yes, the answer is as c++ says
>>> yes, but you can also do C, or cobalt.
>>> 14:15:43 Okay.
>>> 14:15:47 And the difference between the countries on the left is that
>>> they get to vote and the countries on the right don't get to vote yet.
>>> 14:15:53 Okay.
>>> 14:15:59 Alright.
>>> 14:15:58 All right, so let's say with that Richard, are you ready to, to,
>>> to start. I am Yes. Okay, go ahead, please.
>>> 14:16:09 So it's good probably if you can bring up your the documents so
>>> that when people talk to it, they can sort of.
>>> 14:16:18 Yeah, there we go. Thank you.
>>> 14:16:20 Hey, so we had made some revisions following I believe that was
>>> in April was last time we looked at it, Johan there from Sweden has some
>>> great feedback, they were some minor revisions, we went ahead and made
>>> those.
>>> 14:16:36 and they have now appeared in the mailing list.
>>> 14:16:40 So in the last little bit, Alexander has been so great to
>>> contact us and provide some additional feedback here that will help better
>>> this proposal.
>>> 14:17:02 And as Michael said, this thing has not been reviewed by the
>>> committee yet, which means we have the option now of making changes before
>>> they see it. So this is definitely the time to make those changes as on a
>>> separate screen here the feedback from Alexandre,
>>> 14:17:12 I believe everyone has that email.
>>> 14:17:14 I've been going through it a little bit on my own.
>>> 14:17:17 And I believe most of these are very reasonable and very logical
>>> changes to be made.
>>> 14:17:24 First one here talks about the updated constraint for the
>>> execution policy, changing the Remove CV a ref type to the decay type. No
>>> problem. Absolutely.
>>> 14:17:36 We can change that kind of thing.
>>> 14:17:39 second item on the list at any point if you need to stop and
>>> interrupt that's good.
>>> 14:17:44 The second point here the stats error should have a constructor
>>> that allows you to pass a string to it. Obviously to carry the information
>>> about the error.
>>> 14:17:57 Absolutely.
>>> 14:17:57 Not one fear would be right inside of the stats here will just
>>> improve.
>>> 14:18:01 You know just. This is our, this is your hands or Alexander's
>>> feedback. This is Alexander's exclusively today. Okay.
>>> 14:18:13 So I suggested that we have an overloaded constructor here, it
>>> takes a string, in order to pass the information of the what function here,
>>> describing what the error is, of course, we should have that.
>>> 14:18:25 Yeah, so that was overlooked can absolutely be added immediately.
>>> 14:18:33 A few of the other issues here let's take care of the easy ones
>>> first and then we'll come back because most of the challenging ones are all
>>> part of a common theme here, they're all unified.
>>> 14:18:45 First of all here.
>>> 14:18:47 The use of the naming convention underscore T.
>>> 14:18:53 Is that not c++ standard when you define a new type to post fix
>>> it with underscore te was I making a mistake with that
>>> 14:19:06 looks like guy has a response for that.
>>> 14:19:10 There's no.
>>> 14:19:11 The only naming convention that we have regarding underscores is
>>> that symbols of symbols, beginning with two or one underscore reserved.
>>> 14:19:22 There is a habit on some proposal writers to create types with
>>> underscore T.
>>> 14:19:28 It's useful but it's not mandated and it certainly wouldn't
>>> require it wouldn't be sent back.
>>> 14:19:33 Luke is responsible for evolution working group is responsible
>>> for naming and they might have words to say but over the past year or so
>>> I've noticed that we're not quite so
>>> 14:19:47 intent on making sure all new types of an underscore te.
>>> 14:19:50 It's a hangover from see it's quite useful.
>>> 14:19:57 The only place I can think about that has on this party. Now, if
>>> this short tense, or using shorthand for the traits.
>>> 14:20:12 You know, I mean like, Yeah, I agree with it.
>>> 14:20:18 I don't think it's anywhere else.
>>> 14:20:21 Currently,
>>> 14:20:27 I think more importantly also, I wouldn't worry too much about
>>> the names because they will be extensively litigated by library evolution.
>>> 14:20:37 So, you know your names of suggestions like revolution will will
>>> say yes or no to them and offer alternatives.
>>> 14:20:45 So, so don't.
>>> 14:20:47 Don't worry too much about the precise detail of names.
>>> 14:20:52 Okay. Without then at the moment I guess I'll just drop the
>>> underscore key, since it seems to be out of fashion and like you said, the
>>> library team is going to have a look at that anybody minor point
>>> fortunately.
>>> 14:21:06 Let's see if there's any other related simple questions here
>>> before we proceed to the challenging ones, another one here with
>>> interpolation underscore te no problem to change that.
>>> 14:21:35 Okay, all the modes function here or the quantum files.
>>> 14:21:28 There is the discussion and the suggestion here that rather than
>>> returning.
>>> 14:21:35 An interpolated value, such as in the case of a quantum file.
>>> What if we instead returned interpreters to the values and allow the user
>>> then to have access to them inside of the data structure.
>>> 14:21:49 I believe I originally had done this in the first version of the
>>> paper, and yen's Mauer spoke up and thought that was a poor idea, we should
>>> return values rather than each Raiders, even though for example the max
>>> element returns an iterator, I believe
>>> 14:22:04 it was the ends who suggested know we should return values,
>>> instead of iterating hours.
>>> 14:22:12 Anyone have a comment about that I was following a yen's advice
>>> believing him to be more experienced in this than myself doing me in the
>>> projected values for the raw values.
>>> 14:22:26 I think it was just the raw value, just the entire structure
>>> itself, whatever it is,
>>> 14:22:36 but it can be actually quiet enough in efficient I mean, like in
>>> the actual role Hello can be pretty big
>>> 14:22:52 that's definitely true. It looks like I had a comment about this.
>>> 14:22:58 I was only going to affirm that yes it's certainly worth
>>> listening to.
>>> 14:23:05 before you make any changes to the paper.
>>> 14:23:05 If you said something then Dublin, Ireland, and make the point,
>>> otherwise so somebody come back and tell you well no I said this.
>>> 14:23:14 And he does turn up at all the wording groups that core groups
>>> and the library wording groups, so he does carry considerable way because
>>> he is extraordinarily experienced and a very accomplished at wording.
>>> 14:23:30 Actually, so my, my take on this.
>>> 14:23:34 I started to write stuff about these but that just turned out to
>>> be too much I hate cut it out from my other comments paper, and maybe I'll
>>> write something about that I think this.
>>> 14:23:45 I think the chron tiles and mediums are actually so complicated,
>>> compared to the rest of the rest that they really
>>> 14:23:58 mean the expectations and use
>>> 14:24:02 may differ a lot, but if we want to provide something that looks
>>> like. What does in other languages like Python or statistical tools, then
>>> it has to return to some kind of value.
>>> 14:24:18 And I would, I would feel that it could be very surprising it
>>> but it's not a projected value.
>>> 14:24:25 And I think it costs a little bit against this pattern to have
>>> to return the values in some cases for this other one is optional, and all
>>> of that. So, my, my summary of the comments I haven't written yet would
>>> probably be that we should pick either either
>>> 14:24:50 be really a mass like function where you get an answer that you
>>> can use, or like the proposal I started to write for like a generalized
>>> element instead, where you actually get full access to everything and then
>>> you can do whatever you want but it's super
>>> 14:25:09 complicated to use.
>>> 14:25:12 I don't agree that we don't want to use work with iterate
>>> iterate there's us out here because you want to. We want to have a mean and
>>> median and quintiles have the same output the kind of interface.
>>> 14:25:33 Wouldn't it also mean that,
>>> 14:25:37 you know, because we need to order the containers at times. Now,
>>> to get, like, mode.
>>> 14:25:48 We would we be exposing an iterator for an internal container.
>>> 14:25:56 And so that adds additional complications.
>>> 14:25:59 I that's actually where I started with my critique and the ideas
>>> are regarding this this paper that I thought like, why isn't it done.
>>> 14:26:11 This completely other way, but I don't think that it's the way
>>> to go because and also no other.
>>> 14:26:18 No user would expect something like that either you'd have to
>>> have a very complicated.
>>> 14:26:24 You would have to return, like where to where which points, all
>>> of the points you interpolated from what interest rates did they have what
>>> weight, do they have.
>>> 14:26:37 You would have to return, like big structure with information
>>> for someone to actually be able to use it.
>>> 14:26:45 So I think it's better to just make it a black box.
>>> 14:26:50 And then you can have an algorithm, like a generic algorithm
>>> that does generic things, but they can do that is not this.
>>> 14:26:59 And they could work on whatever they thought you have, you don't
>>> have, you can.
>>> 14:27:07 Yeah.
>>> 14:27:08 Right, so we're kind of wanting to work with a scalar value and
>>> if you've got a writers then, now you're talking about dealing with ranges
>>> and multiple values and it just doesn't feel quite the right thing.
>>> 14:27:29 I help him.
>>> 14:27:32 So, as far as I understand we agreed to return value returned
>>> values and not the directors and not expose the useful, possibly useful
>>> things shuffling that happened because it could be too complicated you
>>> expose it.
>>> 14:27:51 Yeah.
>>> 14:27:54 Okay, so it seems like we still have consensus that we want to
>>> return a value. I agree, perhaps now we should probably return the
>>> projected value, rather than the whole structure.
>>> 14:28:04 If it is like a structure that has five integers let's return
>>> the integer inside in question, rather than the whole structure that change
>>> could be made.
>>> 14:28:13 Yes.
>>> 14:28:15 I think I should write down my thought about updates about these
>>> things because I thought about what happens with you. you want to.
>>> 14:28:27 If you want to keep this by your return an optional for like the
>>> right
>>> 14:28:36 like one of the two. In case of median. I'm not, I don't think
>>> that's.
>>> 14:28:45 It would be nice if we could just avoid that, and instead just
>>> return a interpolated value, always.
>>> 14:28:52 Yeah, I think the first version we did that and somebody
>>> corrected me and thought, No, you should give the option of both.
>>> 14:29:03 Yeah, but then you have to, this is like a super special case
>>> where are you now.
>>> 14:29:13 That's the syntax around it becomes pretty annoying I think
>>> because do, and and you can only, only do it for media and not for the
>>> others because then you would need, like the remainder.
>>> 14:29:26 Wait, parts of it.
>>> 14:29:29 That's right and you always have to have an F test er there two
>>> values yeah and then you have to write your own averaging or interpolation
>>> all the time.
>>> 14:29:39 Yeah. So So all of this now on hijacking this whole discussion,
>>> sorry. But, so, so after like trying to argue in my head that we should
>>> this proposal to change to allow arbitrary iterator stuff.
>>> 14:29:52 I concluded, no, this this definitely not the right thing
>>> because you want to just use it as mean, or whatever.
>>> 14:30:00 So, So that's, I wrote.
>>> 14:30:03 It works exactly like elements, but you put in a range of me
>>> instead.
>>> 14:30:22 So, if you want to do stuff like partition and interpolate
>>> arbitrary things like records with whatever. And maybe you don't want to
>>> interpolate using floating point or anything you want.
>>> 14:30:38 and you can use generic algorithm instead.
>>> 14:30:42 OK, OK, OK, that's an alternative Yes.
>>> 14:30:46 I think we can all agree that quintiles and the median is
>>> perhaps the most difficult one here along with the mode, or maybe not but
>>> definitely those Quantel suppose a lot of problem, right from the
>>> beginning.
>>> 14:31:02 I have a question.
>>> 14:31:04 So,
>>> 14:31:07 The median and quintiles to me are fundamentally a little bit
>>> different. Okay, that's, that's absolutely the case yes yeah I mean, the
>>> media is mostly one or two and, you know, most of the time, you know, it
>>> goes back to you want to make the common things
>>> 14:31:24 and the easy things easy, right. Yeah, anything worse than that.
>>> 14:31:30 And the default.
>>> 14:31:32 You know, and anything more than, non common cases, you know,
>>> you want to make it an A possible do but it can be a little bit harder and
>>> almost feel like
>>> 14:31:43 different functions. But quintiles are going to return multiple
>>> values all the time.
>>> 14:31:50 So, you know that that's kind of a different case to be it's
>>> going to be a vector right i mean that's the way it's going to be or, you
>>> know.
>>> 14:32:02 So to me, those are those are kind of two different cases.
>>> 14:32:07 The way I deal with media and separately from Quantel I guess.
>>> 14:32:13 Our.
>>> 14:32:14 No. Yeah,
>>> 14:32:17 go ahead.
>>> 14:32:19 I'm just thinking about the case when the user for example has a
>>> large collection of the items, and tier one get item with the medium price
>>> for example.
>>> 14:32:30 And when we if we turn on a projected file if he can answer this
>>> question, he would need one more pass to find this item with the medium of
>>> the meat and actually.
>>> 14:32:42 Yeah, that's actually, if you want to do that. Yeah, you have to
>>> pretty much use elements.
>>> 14:32:51 I think because because you need otherwise you need to get the
>>> weights, and that depends on, depending on how we designed this on the like
>>> this scheme.
>>> 14:33:05 Like the quantum scheme, there are all of these different
>>> versions of contacts that people use, and actually could even, it's even
>>> the case I think yeah so in some cases you don't actually need to calculate
>>> all the
>>> 14:33:24 same, like partition points depending on which one the schemes
>>> you use, so it's not only a question about waiting.
>>> 14:33:32 But, and also the way you would wait, like, if you want to like
>>> actually get access to the records.
>>> 14:33:43 And that's not something you can do while interpolating really
>>> than you would think.
>>> 14:33:51 I would say use yeah their algorithm system.
>>> 14:33:55 This stuff looks like math to me.
>>> 14:34:02 Do have existing generic algorithms that can do that.
>>> 14:34:07 This is my other. This is my proposal.
>>> 14:34:16 It's called 20 375.
>>> 14:34:22 It's just I'm just writing it right now but you can you can find
>>> it.
>>> 14:34:26 It's just a generalization of elements.
>>> 14:34:30 That's all it is.
>>> 14:34:32 But that's but if you want to do things like that, then you have
>>> to do it.
>>> 14:34:47 You have to decide how do you interpolate strings, I'll do
>>> interpolate time duration so I'll do interpolate post addresses.
>>> 14:34:48 You can't really solve that.
>>> 14:34:51 I think in this setting.
>>> 14:34:57 But I think that we have like a projections for arithmetic
>>> values for doing that so we don't need to interpolate the whole strings, at
>>> least for now, as a retargeting only arithmetic types when this proposal.
>>> 14:35:12 Yeah, but then why do you need the records.
>>> 14:35:19 Well, that's just one of the use case I can't imagine like we
>>> have some records, and they all have prices, and we want to find record.
>>> For example, with the median price.
>>> 14:35:32 But that's, that's an element.
>>> 14:35:37 Actually, so that's an element that the only difference between
>>> elements.
>>> 14:35:42 And these contacts, is that you get help in calculating like how
>>> many things are in the collection, and you get how wasting them together.
>>> 14:35:56 Okay, now, Now I got to find. Okay, thank you.
>>> 14:36:03 Okay, that's actually a very nice answer suggests that if you
>>> want access to the element you should be using something like an element,
>>> or your hands new proposal this 2035 2375 instead.
>>> 14:36:15 And we should make this a math pay proposal where we just give
>>> you that value that you're looking for.
>>> 14:36:22 In which case, maybe we do want to start interpolating or
>>> averaging them together, get rid of that optional and just return one
>>> value, just like you would expect in mathematics.
>>> 14:36:35 I guess we were trying to provide both a mathematical median or
>>> quantum style, and we were allowing you to get access to these elements,
>>> when these should be separated into two different procedures.
>>> 14:36:51 The amp element ID and then the mathematical medium or Quantock
>>> keep them separate.
>>> 14:36:54 This, this took me a month of involuntary thinking to realize
>>> it's it's really two quite different things, possibly, that we want to do.
>>> 14:37:06 Okay, well that would definitely clear it up, we would focus on
>>> the mathematics hear them and give the user what they expect like quantum
>>> or a medium, not get a Raiders or multiple values just a single medium or
>>> Quantel that they expect
>>> 14:37:24 that could definitely simplify a lot here, I think.
>>> 14:37:29 Hey, looking at some of the other points here some of the
>>> weights, being larger than one week definitely can relax that restriction
>>> and allow for that.
>>> 14:37:40 Just a brief note again and Quantel is about the sorted versus
>>> unsorted versions that was originally ends Mauer idea to separate them into
>>> the sorted and unsorted.
>>> 14:37:52 If they're unsorted you only need to make one pass across it, or
>>> you need. If it's sorted you only need to make one pass. If it's unsorted
>>> you needed this special random iterator random access range, so that you
>>> could swap things around as need be.
>>> 14:38:10 So, it was decided that those would be broken into two different
>>> things sorted and unsorted for sure.
>>> 14:38:18 The quantities for a moment and come back to them here after
>>> since there and, again, the most contentious part here
>>> 14:38:27 with other minor issues that are just technical matters to clear
>>> up and not not too difficult.
>>> 14:38:34 Again with the namings the underscore keys, we can drop that
>>> rather using a Boolean for ketosis rather than are using a parameter,
>>> rather than a Boolean sure that'll be consistent everything will be a
>>> parameter.
>>> 14:38:48 The name variants here var as a statistics person I always saw
>>> on university that variants and in textbooks was always written var anyone
>>> like the full name variants instead of var
>>> 14:39:10 mathematics.
>>> 14:39:12 So cause Did you say var.
>>> 14:39:14 Yeah, which also means, you know the difference between
>>> Mathematics and Computer Science right computer science var is variable.
>>> 14:39:24 I'm.
>>> 14:39:33 mentioned like that vs but just open civic the reference and he
>>> found the name function calls about what would he expect. I mean, the
>>> standard library is not only for mathematicians, it's for a wide range.
>>> 14:40:06 I like to longer name so suffer for so this is quite specific.
>>> Also, one could. It's. There are not that many three letter.
>>> 14:40:10 things that we
>>> 14:40:14 three that's right so far is quite a land grab.
>>> 14:40:18 And whilst far does indeed, you're correct. I also a novelist
>>> intuition, and when I see vault. That's what I see. However, the context of
>>> c++ is such that we have a lot, a lot, that identifies and var only leaves
>>> hamsters.
>>> 14:40:34 Because we're mathematicians look at the mathematical.
>>> 14:40:38 I think it was paid to assume as little as possible, of the
>>> audience.
>>> 14:40:46 Okay, okay fair enough again I was coming from the bias side of
>>> having a math background like all of us, sure we can change that to
>>> variants yeah yeah and there is a good point that yes that looks like
>>> variable as Larry says, and someone looking at the
>>> 14:40:58 standard library might think this is a variable or some sort of
>>> sure we could change that to bear needs. Yeah.
>>> 14:41:06 All of the other names are spelled out in full as well so that
>>> would be consistent then sure we can change that.
>>> 14:41:13 What do you use for standard deviation.
>>> 14:41:16 St DEVB enough for them.
>>> 14:41:21 If anybody confuse that with anything else.
>>> 14:41:26 Do we want to do a standard underscore deviation.
>>> 14:41:34 Yes. Well,
>>> 14:41:34 actually, all the, this so called special math functions are
>>> very long names, they are released.
>>> 14:41:44 I don't know info. I don't think we should be scared of long
>>> names, really, you know, lexicographical comparison. That's hardly.
>>> 14:41:52 You know that doesn't roll off the time, but don't say it means
>>> there's also the scope if you as a programmer, absolutely sick of topic and
>>> parents, you can always alias these names yourself.
>>> 14:42:05 I think the smart thing to do, sorry that's an awful thing to
>>> say no I don't mean this.
>>> 14:42:11 I think the kind thing to do, to all the consumers of C plus
>>> classes to be as an ambiguous as possible with our names.
>>> 14:42:29 Looking at the special, special mouth ones right now Riemann
>>> underscore zeta SPH underscore vessel function. Yeah, we could go ahead and
>>> say, standard underscore variants, or standard underscore TV and give the
>>> full name there.
>>> 14:42:39 Again, we're coming from the perspective of mathematicians it's
>>> clear to us but others, they might not. So, yeah, we can definitely do we
>>> could make sure.
>>> 14:42:51 A couple of other minor points here about rolling exceptions and
>>> things like that that's maybe a little bit more detail will come back to
>>> that.
>>> 14:43:00 Let's look at this big overarching idea of this execution policy
>>> something that I realized I might have overlooked.
>>> 14:43:08 If we are going to be working with an input range.
>>> 14:43:14 We're assuming you have maybe just one scan over the data.
>>> 14:43:23 If we start talking about ideas and parallel processing and
>>> things like that when you only have potentially one look at the data, there
>>> might be issues and concerns with that and that's what Alexander found when
>>> he was implementing, maybe he could speak
>>> 14:43:36 a little bit more to what he found.
>>> 14:43:40 Well, I haven't implemented thorough version of the app.
>>> 14:43:43 But at least as far as I know, like all existing algorithms.
>>> 14:43:50 With execution policy they all use for what it razors, because
>>> how you can paralyze things. When you can know the size. When, when you can
>>> read multiple writers like multiple times.
>>> 14:44:07 I mean, how can you split this range, with only inputted razors.
>>> That's true. Yeah, we haven't seen the full data we don't know the size we
>>> don't know how to carve it out.
>>> 14:44:17 You'd have to scan it once and then you can't scan it again,
>>> you'd have to save it in storage you'd have like you said an old van linear
>>> storage problem.
>>> 14:44:27 So what I was thinking about earlier today was what if we had a
>>> version here where we had two versions and input iterator if you just going
>>> to scan over something once, and there's no parallel version.
>>> 14:44:40 And then we had forward random moderators and those have
>>> overloaded execution policy versions.
>>> 14:44:49 So if you're only making one scan, you don't need execution
>>> policy, we won't allow that. But we would have overloaded versions that
>>> take input or far sorry forward it or writers and those ones could have
>>> execution policy control.
>>> 14:45:09 Just to clarify, you do.
>>> 14:45:14 Do you need random access for competition policies that would, I
>>> would have assumed that I believe only for the quintiles would be unsorted
>>> where we have to move things around the other ones I think we can get away
>>> with a forward iterator like for the
>>> 14:45:28 mean.
>>> 14:45:35 Okay, so let's talk to you need to know what you need to know.
>>> Okay, so you can.
>>> 14:45:42 Okay.
>>> 14:45:45 And, can anyone please clarify for me How can you iterate salted
>>> quanta with only input iterate or when you don't know the size of the range
>>> ahead.
>>> 14:46:05 I mean that you need to know the Quantel you need first know
>>> besides convenient to go back and pick up the right element.
>>> 14:46:14 And with the impotent writers, you can do that, and leave until
>>> you copy the whole range. This is obviously unreasonable.
>>> 14:46:24 Yes, yes, yes, that's a mistake that one really should be a
>>> forward iterator so that you can have at least one scan over at first.
>>> 14:46:34 To determine the length and then come back to the center or
>>> wherever you're looking for. Yes.
>>> 14:46:42 Looks like guy has something he can add for this.
>>> 14:46:46 Um, I wonder if the I'm embarrassing the unfamiliar with the
>>> execution policies, I appreciate how they were but are they guarantees or
>>> are they can.
>>> 14:46:58 I think we maybe could ask Michael that he would probably be the
>>> best answer that.
>>> 14:47:07 I originally did not have paralyzed version, I believe it was
>>> Michael suggested I did that it seems this year or not.
>>> 14:47:17 That's right, Mike was involved with another meeting. Okay, I
>>> know that. As far as I understand the pilot, the execution policy stuff, I
>>> mean you could you can never say that this implementation is not standard
>>> compliance because it's not the panel and
>>> 14:47:29 licensing, or anything like that you can't really prove that
>>> within the language.
>>> 14:47:34 It's not done observable, that's not observable right so, so, so
>>> quantity of connotations. As we said many times last meeting. But
>>> 14:47:47 I, I am a little bit concerned with.
>>> 14:47:53 even having a method that has to scan.
>>> 14:48:20 I mean, okay quintile is order, and, but I i would i would
>>> assume most users would not expect it to scan twice but. So, yeah. The
>>> reason why I was asking if it's a hint or a guarantee is, is this you know
>>> if these, these raise capital category is known
>>> 14:48:27 at compile time.
>>> 14:48:29 And if the parallel. If the execution policy isn't is
>>> incompatible with the Israeli category, then you know that that that could
>>> solve the problem of being pastor forward iterator.
>>> 14:48:43 When a random access iterator is needed to satisfy the execution
>>> policy.
>>> 14:49:02 Looks like Luke has something you can definitely go ahead and
>>> 14:49:10 got a wild animal there that's, that's the reality the online,
>>> we got we got a chance to wait for you, not a child but a dog, those, those
>>> are just constraints as to what is correct, right so your algorithm is
>>> correct if
>>> 14:49:26 you can, you know, the implementation is is able to do things
>>> based on
>>> 14:49:36 requirements. So it's sequential
>>> 14:49:48 also was trying to implement it I found that my implementation
>>> would completely rely on the existing existing algorithms, because all we
>>> basically need is the foremost algorithms, is just the way to combine into
>>> separately, calculated.
>>> 14:50:12 Statistics information and the mathematical formulas for this,
>>> and it should not be pretty hard. So, the final implementation at this mine
>>> condition would mostly rely on the existing algorithms.
>>> 14:50:37 I also want to bring one interesting moment, found that in this
>>> proposal execution policy diversions also are marked context for. So is
>>> this a typo or is this intentional because in theory we can use like stood
>>> his content evaluated and to completely
>>> 14:50:59 ignore any execution policy and execute and calculate everything
>>> at compile time, but no existing standard algorithm does that.
>>> 14:51:17 Okay, yes I, but I believe that is a table that is a mistake
>>> there.
>>> 14:51:20 I'm sorry. Could you clarify that mistake again.
>>> 14:51:25 That constant expression on the execution policy outside of the
>>> standard.
>>> 14:51:32 Okay, got it.
>>> 14:51:37 Question. Again, or something like
>>> 14:51:42 Or something like in here in execution policy.
>>> 14:51:48 Forward range,
>>> 14:51:52 potentially could be a problem since you only have one scan the
>>> data.
>>> 14:51:58 Like this. Did we want to have just a non execution policy.
>>> 14:52:04 Input iterator, and then a separate version with a forward
>>> iterator and execution policy.
>>> 14:52:29 Yes, I think, that's fine. Let's like most algorithms are
>>> implemented.
>>> 14:52:23 Okay, okay, that's what I was thinking. Earlier today when you
>>> pointed out the mistake area.
>>> 14:52:39 If, however, you have like a vector or a list and you want to do
>>> parallelization, then we would have another forward iterator for that case.
>>> 14:52:50 Okay, okay, divide those into separate cases then.
>>> 14:52:56 Okay, so that actually gives us quite a nice solution to that
>>> problem. That's good.
>>> 14:53:03 Returning again to the major discussions here, the quantum
>>> miles, and the, the medium or indirectly, right from the outset, this was
>>> the most difficult problem.
>>> 14:53:15 Yes.
>>> 14:53:17 It looks like what we've decided here today is we want to move
>>> away from an element and allowing the user to access elements and parts of
>>> the data structure.
>>> 14:53:30 We want this to be more mathematical in nature, like Mumbai, or
>>> Python statistics.
>>> 14:53:36 So it looks like we're more interested in returning the value,
>>> rather than giving deep access to the elements kind of thing.
>>> 14:53:44 So we kind of want to merge it into one value if we can.
>>> 14:53:50 And we don't want to provide iterator access.
>>> 14:53:54 Since that would be non mathematical and you could do that with
>>> an element instead.
>>> 14:54:01 And we're still going to continue to have this idea I believe of
>>> assorted median and assorted quantum and unsorted distorted one would
>>> definitely have to have some notion of like a forward iterator so you can I
>>> get the size of it, maybe go over it again,
>>> 14:54:18 even though that's kind of an ugly thing.
>>> 14:54:21 The unsorted one definitely, I believe, is going to meet the
>>> random access iterator.
>>> 14:54:34 We definitely have to move elements around. So this one I
>>> believe needs to be the random access.
>>> 14:54:40 And we want to keep the sorted and unsorted separately. The
>>> sorted is a little bit less restrictive because it's just the middle point.
>>> 14:54:49 The unsorted has to be more restrictive. Since we're going to be
>>> using an element to swap things around.
>>> 14:54:57 I'm sorry. Within sort of version you're actually sorting the,
>>> the original container.
>>> 14:55:09 Yes.
>>> 14:55:12 Nobody ever seemed to have an objection to that I think there
>>> was a problem though some suggested that duplicating and copying was a
>>> problem so I think we agree that we would allow it to be switched around.
>>> 14:55:23 Anyone have any change of heart about that now.
>>> 14:55:29 Sorry doing mean like complete, or just like an element, sort of
>>> elements just a partial change, but it would change would change it would
>>> not leave the original unmodified it would possibly change it.
>>> 14:55:45 Okay, so let me be clear here you talked about starting the
>>> original underlying data in response to a function called sorted quintiles
>>> no sorry the unsorted the unsorted one here would be moving things around
>>> in the original data structure,
>>> 14:56:05 believe we saw another function that did something similar maybe
>>> and that's where we got the precedents for that.
>>> 14:56:13 If I can find that while Luke speaks here, and guy answers.
>>> 14:56:19 I don't know, suggest and this may not be appropriate, but a lot
>>> of times if you can allow people to move you a container or copy you a
>>> container. If they want, you know to preserve their initial container, it
>>> would be a cost, right, not move but past
>>> 14:56:35 past your reference or move you move you a container so if they
>>> if they really don't want you to modify their data. They're going to accept
>>> the cost of a copy.
>>> 14:56:46 Otherwise, they'll just give you a reference and sort of up to
>>> them how they would like to use it now that can be surprising to
>>> some users.
>>> 14:56:54 So might not be appropriate here but it's an option.
>>> 14:57:01 Okay, with that perhaps the Boolean type decision choose if you
>>> want to copy it or just go ahead and mix it up it. Well, I guess what I'm
>>> saying is you're taking the range here by forwarding reference for the
>>> unsorted one note that's a random access or
>>> 14:57:19 no I'm just saying sorry I'm saying that are parameter is a
>>> forwarding reference. Yep.
>>> 14:57:24 So, if I.
>>> 14:57:29 It would be nice if there was a way for me as a color to pass
>>> you a copy.
>>> 14:57:36 If I need to and that may be what's going on here like I find
>>> know that this may modify my container.
>>> 14:57:41 I will need to make a copy of it.
>>> 14:57:44 Otherwise I'm happy to pass your reference.
>>> 14:57:46 And that may just be on a user's, it may be on the user to do
>>> that.
>>> 14:57:52 Okay, giving them a little bit of choice there.
>>> 14:57:54 Well, they already have the choice. They can make a copy, and
>>> give it to you.
>>> 14:57:59 Okay, okay. So I guess what I'm saying is I think it's
>>> appropriate to, if it's, you know, if it to give this efficient version to
>>> someone who doesn't care if you're if you're manipulating their container
>>> with the understanding that if they do care they
>>> 14:58:13 can make a copy.
>>> 14:58:14 Okay, just make that clear in the documentation then
>>> 14:58:19 just to verify something, my brain here I maybe I need more
>>> coffee this afternoon.
>>> 14:58:25 undistorted quintile refers to the fact that your underlying
>>> data is unsorted correct. That's right.
>>> 14:58:34 Sure don't like that name.
>>> 14:58:39 Watch I'll sell me what you're returning is inserted.
>>> 14:58:42 I would much prefer something like Quantel underscore unsorted,
>>> but that's just me.
>>> 14:58:48 Okay Quantel over unsorted data, something okay I understand
>>> what you're seeing yeah it's it's also the mutating contest.
>>> 14:58:59 Yes, yes.
>>> 14:59:01 I,
>>> 14:59:10 I was actually going to address this point that mutating and we
>>> do have things like stable partition and partition stable source and
>>> source, is there an appropriate prefix.
>>> 14:59:21 You know, unsorted content, I'm sure we can do, we can have a
>>> much longer than that if we like, really
>>> 14:59:28 good for the moon.
>>> 14:59:29 We need to use Greek letters like the mathematicians
>>> 14:59:36 SG 16th feedback. But yes, Yes we do.
>>> 14:59:41 I'm actually looking at that stage on on stage so great now in
>>> there. Yeah, that would be a good kind of naming something about Yeah.
>>> 14:59:54 Actually Python has pi has both mutating and non mutating there
>>> it's absolutely not clear, which one is which one lives in empty array in
>>> non pie and the other one lives just in line, non pie.
>>> 15:00:09 So because empty array of quantum venues, get mutated in place.
>>> Yeah, so I feel like mutated better, and when I see stable.
>>> 15:00:23 I think of an understand unstable I think of an unstable
>>> algorithm which doesn't.
>>> 15:00:28 It just means something completely different to me.
>>> 15:00:30 It has nothing to do with mutation mutation is mutation the
>>> stability is the ability it's algorithmic.
>>> 15:00:38 You can always use an exclamation point right as a second
>>> language does that Julia or somebody.
>>> 15:00:52 Seriously, I prefer mute. Me either. Some reference to mutation
>>> 15:00:59 indicate that yes we are changing the elements that are around
>>> in your data structure.
>>> 15:01:08 Okay. I'm sure we can agree again once more that quantum miles
>>> in the media year, the load the quantity was a really proven to be the most
>>> challenging, they're the most.
>>> 15:01:17 Unlike the other ones.
>>> 15:01:23 There's actually there's one question about them that I that
>>> remains, somehow, for me, then that is this
>>> 15:01:34 open close baseball thing with.
>>> 15:01:38 Does this allow people to do what what they expect to do.
>>> 15:01:44 And for median.
>>> 15:01:47 Median medium is interesting because it's just, it's not really
>>> quantity 0.5, it's integer division.
>>> 15:01:55 And there's, there's also percentiles and whatever up titles,
>>> there's all these integers integer defined.
>>> 15:02:23 Quantum tiles. And that is the thing, and if you, if you look at
>>> Wikipedia on percentile you'll find many ways, even for percentiles that
>>> are not the same as all these special.
>>> 15:02:38 floating point Q from zero to one. So, so I would, I would like
>>> to understand. First of all, I found just I think yesterday that in the
>>> site pie. There is stats m stats m compiles, which actually has parameters
>>> enough to be able to specify with to floats
>>> 15:03:05 all them, and nine times of standard kinds of floating point
>>> compliance describe that Wikipedia and this comments paper from Poland, I
>>> think, as far as I understand, you can't get those currently with compile
>>> with a compile some Indian functions in the
>>> 15:03:30 paper.
>>> 15:03:33 Okay, you're referring to your lamp those paper there yes and we
>>> spoke with her.
>>> 15:03:39 And I think we decided on this reduce set of functions.
>>> 15:03:49 I think what originally I was doing I'm looking at Python simple
>>> statistics library now I think I'm meeting the base requirements of just
>>> what Python does here not the non pie or any other library I think this was
>>> just the basic Python library meeting
>>> 15:04:08 its standard
>>> 15:04:11 01 well accepted mathematical name for the quantum file that you
>>> are calculating
>>> 15:04:22 look it up here on the Python library just says quantum divide
>>> the normal distribution and and continuous intervals with equal
>>> probability.
>>> 15:04:31 It seems Quantel seems to be that standard definition and
>>> everything else is that an extended term or specialized term for anything
>>> else.
>>> 15:04:47 Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. Right.
>>> 15:04:44 If you look at paper or Wikipedia on compile.
>>> 15:04:52 I think the, the way, non paid assets.
>>> 15:05:05 There's many many choices on, like if you want to divide by n or
>>> n minus one, or if you want to interpolate like from. I mean, there's so
>>> many kind of weird arbitrary choices you can do when you interpolate your
>>> data like do you want to consider each
>>> 15:05:19 kind of been as starting from the left. And the last been
>>> update, starting from the rights and then you kind of interpolate from the
>>> edges or dissenters or there's um there's the one that the Python does by
>>> default is actually quite.
>>> 15:05:39 I like it, but it's actually quite different from all of the
>>> others.
>>> 15:05:45 And it's not the default in most other packages like side pie
>>> and maple and hard, and they most of them actually support all of these
>>> different ways to do things.
>>> 15:05:57 And then we have with an accepted, then people would know right.
>>> 15:06:03 I don't think it really has one it's, it's kind of it's like,
>>> yeah, Wikipedia.
>>> 15:06:11 Number seven or something like that.
>>> 15:06:14 Wanting to become a columnist
>>> 15:06:19 economists are very good at corralling terms together for each
>>> other, maybe they have a, they actually use this stuff lots maybe they have
>>> a better glossary.
>>> 15:06:31 That's true.
>>> 15:06:32 But the interesting thing I think was was his this.
>>> 15:06:36 I mean, if you think about being able to generalize this and
>>> actually make people, allow people to do what they do to push their current
>>> route, so sorry route, are or non pie or whatever they used to c++, if we,
>>> if we had something like what site by us.
>>> 15:06:58 us. It's two floating point values, and they, depending on what
>>> you set these two.
>>> 15:07:11 I mean this is, then you get all of these variants variations,
>>> described Wikipedia.
>>> 15:07:14 And this is still only for floating point.
>>> 15:07:19 Kind of interpolation. If you also go to.
>>> 15:07:23 If you look at percentiles which is very.
>>> 15:07:29 Those kinds of integer based fractions.
>>> 15:07:32 That's actually in a way, quite different, because then you can
>>> start to interpolate things that don't necessarily require flopping points
>>> multiplication.
>>> 15:07:44 So you could you could do model.
>>> 15:07:50 Some types of maybe not doesn't support dropping points.
>>> 15:07:54 You can actually interpolate in in a much broader set of
>>> corrected things then flows.
>>> 15:08:07 But maybe that's, that's something else but but I find it a
>>> little bit
>>> 15:08:16 annoying that
>>> 15:08:19 we can't. Usually we have too much almost flexibility in c++
>>> library, libraries, but
>>> 15:08:33 I like to have this, this possibility to specify this all family
>>> today call it in, in the rooms in their site by Johann, are you referring
>>> to percentiles as divided equally into 101 100 groups.
>>> 15:08:53 Yes, but if you look at Wikipedia on how people do that there's
>>> also many ways.
>>> 15:09:01 And that's only 4% five and then there's also the divide by four
>>> and all kinds of include groups that. And if you actually read only
>>> 40,000%. Yeah, exactly and that's not the same as 25%.
>>> 15:09:18 I really would take Wikipedia with a pinch of salt when it comes
>>> to naming things of course much. Yeah, yeah, yeah but but still.
>>> 15:09:30 I mean, it allows us to discover that there is a concept of
>>> integer compiles that are actually not the same from, from a P.
>>> 15:09:40 That is defined by floating point.
>>> 15:09:48 What did we do for standard deviation. I mean there's population
>>> and sample.
>>> 15:09:54 That one we have a parameter there to pass.
>>> 15:09:57 I'm thinking with what Johan said if we were able to meet the
>>> base requirement or the base standard here set by side pie that might be
>>> all right. We would allow you to pass to floating point values, give you
>>> all of these variations here.
>>> 15:10:12 It leaves open the question but percentiles but at least we
>>> could match everything that sci fi is doing with the basic quantum miles is
>>> I believe that's enough flexibility.
>>> 15:10:24 I prefer. In this case you have any new
>>> 15:10:29 rather than infer from two floating point values if we've got
>>> nine types we should have an email with nine types of, same with me
>>> essentially the same did the same with any of these things will have
>>> alternative calculations standard deviation Quantel,
>>> 15:10:45 you know, percentile.
>>> 15:10:48 That's my.
>>> 15:11:05 half of 1.5.
>>> 15:11:03 So we started opening it up to making it more generic like that.
>>> I know it breaks mystical justification to that.
>>> 15:11:11 Historical justification to that.
>>> 15:11:22 Yeah, I would.
>>> 15:11:17 Yeah.
>>> 15:11:22 I find I find it a little bit. I mean,
>>> 15:11:31 one could have names for these. I mean one that could be, it
>>> could be one argument that has a default value, but there's no reason that
>>> because implementation is going to use these two values, there's no reason
>>> to not expose that to the user because they,
>>> 15:11:47 their values have a meaning, that's how you round up and down
>>> and how you divide the range of stuff.
>>> 15:11:57 You could, it could have some of the sign that lists these
>>> default things as I'm not sure they have names in them, they, they are
>>> really our type four or 569.
>>> 15:12:15 I'm not sure we want to refer to our.
>>> 15:12:21 The standard either. Yeah, they don't have names and then we
>>> have to ensure that we cover all the cases. Yeah.
>>> 15:12:28 Well if those two floating point values.
>>> 15:12:32 Let me ask.
>>> 15:12:35 Could a user specify, I don't know what those are. Did you just
>>> specify two values which would make sense, which would not make sense.
>>> 15:12:43 Yes.
>>> 15:12:47 I hate giving people rope to hang themselves.
>>> 15:12:54 Bye.
>>> 15:13:07 Here it is in the comments there the link to this thing, see
>>> what this thing officially looks like, really, all the, all the statistics,
>>> utilities, support these, at least.
>>> 15:13:30 And
>>> 15:13:30 that means ones like SAS SPS and Sr. Yeah, all of them had this.
>>> 15:13:38 That kind of sets a precedent or a bit of a standard then to
>>> follow.
>>> 15:13:51 Except Excel.
>>> 15:14:06 No, it's a little bit of a struggle for the visa I can
>>> definitely see that if we follow the standard set by all these other
>>> packages were at least in line with what everyone else is thinking, and it
>>> does provide the flexibility here although Yes, it's
>>> 15:14:19 not going to be an enumerated value it's going to break our
>>> standard.
>>> 15:14:24 But we can appeal to the fact that we're doing what everybody
>>> else is doing the de facto standard here.
>>> 15:14:42 Just as a really off the wall remark here, does anyone think
>>> that it is possible, or realistic that this proposal should perhaps so mid
>>> Kwan tiles in the median here for the first iteration and allow that to
>>> come in the second after there's been a lot
>>> 15:14:57 more time to think about it, given the trials and difficulties
>>> with this.
>>> 15:15:03 Or do we want to try to ship something that has that in there.
>>> 15:15:11 Is there a most common one you think.
>>> 15:15:16 I guess kind of what we're seeing in like sci fi here.
>>> 15:15:20 And then if we want to add on the added percentiles and more
>>> flexible features leaked later, but just have this first incarnation.
>>> 15:15:29 Looks like guy has something he could say, yes, suddenly,
>>> smaller papers get through a lot more easily than large papers.
>>> 15:15:38 One approach, you could take, which we took with linear algebra
>>> was to first of all, prepare a presentation in a position paper that says
>>> there's a whole pile of special functions that we want to add.
>>> 15:15:52 Here's a list of them. Here's the all that we're going to attack
>>> this in. We're putting the easy ones first, so that we can think about the
>>> harder ones whilst we're going through the easy ones, we're much more
>>> likely to get time in front of lobby working
>>> 15:16:06 group with a 10 page paper than with a 40 page paper. So, unless
>>> they're unless there is any, you know, direct relationship between them
>>> that requires any of these functions to be pulled together, then there's a
>>> there's a lot of benefits and pulling the
>>> 15:16:29 partners into smaller papers.
>>> 15:16:27 Okay, along with kind of the indirect or promise here that they
>>> are coming, so they don't give the impression that permitting that major
>>> feature. Make it clear in this this first paper that those are coming.
>>> 15:16:38 But there's going to be a little bit more thought about the
>>> first. This is what we did within your algebra, but when I first came out
>>> the linear algebra paper people said oh need solvers.
>>> 15:16:48 How's the game, gave god no doubt, you know, we've never get a
>>> favor out if we did that. So we have this layered approach we we start with
>>> the matrix class and then we build on that and the same way you start with
>>> fundamentals and say Don't worry more
>>> 15:17:01 is coming. It'll be fine. reassure people.
>>> 15:17:03 Okay, so this one then would look at the mean, standard
>>> deviation and variance. And then the mode, the mode I think is easy enough
>>> to get in here that one's not too much of a problem, but the quantum files
>>> here, and we can appeal to this fact that we
>>> 15:17:18 have inconsistent definitions of even what quantity is.
>>> 15:17:24 There's this de facto standard that most of the statistical
>>> libraries follow but Wikipedia says something else so it's not advisable to
>>> push through the quantum at this point since there's just too much debate.
>>> 15:17:36 But we are looking at it, we're not forgetting about it. You're
>>> not leaving out this major feature that's coming in the future.
>>> 15:17:47 I can deal with that.
>>> 15:17:50 So it's the idea to spit it out.
>>> 15:17:54 The content and media from this paper, or is it to make it.
>>> 15:18:00 Did you say remove mediums well.
>>> 15:18:06 Medium perhaps if there's not too much debate about that at
>>> least in for for almost for sure in this sort of case, because we know it's
>>> just immediately in the center their average them together, We decided we
>>> give you one value back.
>>> 15:18:21 It's the quantum file here and the definitions associated with
>>> them that's really posing the problem.
>>> 15:18:27 So you would at least for the time being have the ability to
>>> compute compute a median quantum while we would say as forthcoming just
>>> given the difficulties will give you a medium at least as a start.
>>> 15:18:41 One could argue that if we're not ready to decide on the design
>>> interface and
>>> 15:18:50 requirements contracts on contracts that could influence our
>>> thinking about. We can also buy things that we're talking about now like,
>>> what should be returned to be the prediction should it be the value
>>> 15:19:09 or not. Yeah, yeah.
>>> 15:19:11 So it looks like I would I would like to tie them together.
>>> Actually, I, I'm really interested in these I think they should come in as
>>> soon as possible but not sooner, and not the price of the other things I
>>> think, okay, so it seems like we're kind of
>>> 15:19:29 in agreement that we should take out this section, it's just we
>>> want to take out both Quantel and medium,
>>> 15:19:39 or just leave a partial media in here like for assorted case
>>> where it's very easy return an average value user has something to work
>>> with until the quantities comes.
>>> 15:19:51 Go ahead. Go.
>>> 15:19:54 This is more of a meta point I noticed the top we've been here
>>> for an hour and 20 minutes, and there is another paper that's we're
>>> expected to review here.
>>> 15:20:03 We should probably Larry your chair, which we do show a meeting
>>> coming up soon so I think I'm.
>>> 15:20:12 Since I'm giving the paper, it's not really a paper first of
>>> all, I mean it's it's really a PowerPoint when I'm not even close to a
>>> paper on this.
>>> 15:20:23 Was it was gonna say always, always do is make sure is make sure
>>> that if we continue with this we're continuing. As a matter of choice,
>>> rather than by default.
>>> 15:20:32 Right. So, at this point, I don't know what how do you should we
>>> take a vote, I guess the proposals are.
>>> 15:20:44 So, First of all the proposal to remove Quantel.
>>> 15:20:49 Let's just.
>>> 15:20:51 Can we take a vote. I'm not sure how to take a vote, so.
>>> 15:20:56 So, this is Michael sorry I've been monitoring I've been
>>> listening to the call, but now I'm back.
>>> 15:21:02 I think, I don't know of a vote is needed. I think it's Richard
>>> has taken all the feedback, he will go off and and make the adjustments,
>>> according to what he picks out.
>>> 15:21:13 Is that the case, I'll definitely be in correspondence with
>>> everyone through email and mailing list I'll make Yeah, we have some input
>>> for sure. Yeah, yeah.
>>> 15:21:22 Yeah, yeah. So I don't think we need a boat here. Unless you
>>> want one, but that's fine that that goes ahead I'll send the email but it
>>> looks like at minimum, we're going to pull the quantum miles out, just give
>>> me an it's not ready.
>>> 15:21:26 No, no, be careful as you make the changes to the paper, because
>>> you're, you're making change to a published paper, paper, you should make
>>> the change to a new up the paper, a D, whatever this this one is.
>>> 15:21:48 Okay, the same number, but the new revision up one, and then
>>> we'll review that one. And here's the problem. When you get to LEWG which
>>> paper Do you review.
>>> 15:21:55 Okay.
>>> 15:21:57 If there's a lot of changes here.
>>> 15:22:00 Or there's only a sorry it's if there's only minor changes here,
>>> then you could potentially post that paper to the group, so that they can
>>> see that oh we have some, we had some late updates and we can, we would
>>> rather that you review the newly updated
>>> 15:22:16 paper. Okay, so hopefully that's probably the best best thing if
>>> you can do it like that, if there are a lot of changes then we're going to
>>> have to probably, if we can get it out in on the 15th of this month, or the
>>> next month, then, then, then publish
>>> 15:22:31 another paper, and that way they can always have the latest
>>> paper.
>>> 15:22:34 Okay, okay, okay, it's not going to be too terribly much it's
>>> going to be segmenting the other algorithms into. Okay, and the iterative,
>>> or input iterator and a forward iterative version, and then pulling out
>>> these quantum miles here is going to be the
>>> 15:22:48 big chain guys know Be careful though. Are you sure that these
>>> changes are blessed by everyone and everyone will like it always, always
>>> thinks that like this is what I'm changing going to increase the consensus
>>> of the paper.
>>> 15:23:02 Meaning, more people are going to like a more people going to
>>> love it.
>>> 15:23:06 If it's not clear that more people are going to love it. You
>>> don't have to make the change what you can do is put it as an alternative
>>> and say, oh by the way some people would like it like this.
>>> 15:23:17 Okay. You can do it as a new addition as an additional
>>> attendance section. So, you make the choice but be careful you don't want
>>> to decrease the consensus on this paper.
>>> 15:23:28 Okay, some of the issues don't like with that execution policy
>>> is going to be a problem if it's just an input and radio so that exactly if
>>> you think something is going to get even slightly controversial don't, you
>>> don't have to.
>>> 15:23:40 Don't you don't have to throw away but put it in as an attendee.
>>> 15:23:43 Okay, okay. I think some of those are kind of almost mistakes
>>> that need to be corrected. Okay, if there's a clear mistakes, go for it.
>>> Yeah.
>>> 15:23:52 Okay. So, as I understand that. I mean, this is, it's not this
>>> group that writes this paper.
>>> 15:23:59 It's, we are discussing feedback on the paper. Yeah, it's so
>>> we're not voting on how the paper should look or anything like that.
>>> 15:24:10 We still have to vote to exit the paper we did that already is.
>>> Exactly. It's already done. Oh, this is just back. Yeah, yeah so and that's
>>> the same so I we're not going to go through this today, I think, at least,
>>> we don't have time and I don't think
>>> 15:24:24 anyone has prepared for it. I have written this other feedback
>>> paper. Also, which talks about the exceptions and things like that. Right.
>>> But, but that is also I mean, that is that is input.
>>> 15:24:53 So, whatever happened to it will happen.
>>> 15:24:46 So Michael has his hand up but I will answer your question
>>> first. You have published a paper about exceptions, is that a piece of
>>> paper that's published.
>>> 15:25:02 Now, right, it's going to be P paper tomorrow or whenever the
>>> mailing is. OK, so it's going to be published this month. Right.
>>> 15:25:06 Yeah, it's the 15th I think the team. Yeah, yeah it's currently
>>> in SP. You want to review it here in this group.
>>> 15:25:18 I don't know what what the best way is that we don't have time
>>> for today I think when no no we have time.
>>> 15:25:25 Okay.
>>> 15:25:27 People about to publish is much more urgent than anything else
>>> we have on the left. Okay, so if you have a paper that's about to go
>>> public. We that that trumps everything else on the agenda.
>>> 15:25:39 So, in that case we would look at that paper immediately.
>>> 15:25:44 Okay.
>>> 15:25:45 And that way you can get feedback from this group, and then you
>>> then you can decide whether you want to go through with publishing or not.
>>> 15:25:52 Okay.
>>> 15:25:53 Michael, go ahead.
>>> 15:25:54 Yeah, it's more of a personal preference, maybe, but the the
>>> idea of having choices in the paper is good, in my opinion, but the idea of
>>> having too many choices.
>>> 15:26:07 I think it might be detrimental to the, to the paper so it, I, I
>>> suggest a weighted so for very important decisions to to have the options
>>> in the paper but not for every detail because that might result in
>>> confusion, at least when I read the paper that
>>> 15:26:24 has too many decisions to take. I find it confusing that I
>>> cannot.
>>> 15:26:32 Understood. Yeah. Yeah.
>>> 15:26:36 Yeah.
>>> 15:26:36 I can't believe it won't be too many choices but I just want to
>>> tell which had all the options he has. But, but you're right. Don't don't
>>> don't put so many choices that it becomes very confusing I find it
>>> confusing to to so many choices.
>>> 15:26:49 Okay, so, um, so let's take a sorry I'm just going to I'm going
>>> to join back in and help chair, because I'm back.
>>> 15:26:58 Thank you very much to Larry for driving us to choose.
>>> 15:27:02 It was great job, absolutely fantastic given that you really
>>> well you've been with us for over six months now so it's up to you. You've
>>> seen enough of these.
>>> 15:27:12 So I think we have a couple of things in front of us just to
>>> take stock, we have the Johan paper on exceptions. We have guy Davidson was
>>> going to give an update on linear algebra, I believe, and we also have the
>>> reinforcement learning feedback or approach
>>> 15:27:30 of these, I want to make sure we get the exception paper looked
>>> at and reviewed and then whatever time we have we can do the feedback and
>>> feedback or the, all the linear algebra look but if we don't have time, I
>>> would relegate those to the next meeting.
>>> 15:27:45 Okay, with that, would that work.
>>> 15:27:50 Okay. is that okay all right guys okay Larry Are you okay with
>>> that.
>>> 15:27:56 Sure.
>>> 15:27:57 Okay, thank you. Just high, it's just time time time time
>>> management here. So with that, I would say I would like to see if I can get
>>> them, Johan to show his paper and discuss it.
>>> 15:28:11 Yeah.
>>> 15:28:12 Let's see.
>>> 15:28:16 segments.
>>> 15:28:41 alright.
>>> 15:28:57 Right.
>>> 15:28:59 Yeah. So,
>>> 15:29:02 After last time when the call I, I thought, I have trouble
>>> making myself.
>>> 15:29:12 Understood. So, I started to write down my thoughts instead. And
>>> that went out of hand into this part too long text.
>>> 15:29:27 So, it's mostly a lot of References Footnotes disguised as a
>>> paper.
>>> 15:29:32 But what I what I do in this paper if I, I think I can go
>>> through all the cases where, where exceptions are thrown stats are
>>> exception, and I compare it to other things that currently exists in.
>>> 15:29:50 In, c++, and other libraries, like, especially math functions
>>> and the existing math functions. And you even like mid range cases.
>>> 15:30:03 For example for in their products and transform and all of those
>>> we gracefully deal with empty ranges, and pretty much all the main
>>> 15:30:16 means mainstream tools for statistics, either house, have a
>>> special mechanism to deal with kind of missing values empty ranges, norms,
>>> or things like that.
>>> 15:30:29 And it's far too long to really go through, but I can, I can try
>>> to to outline, why I come to the conclusions they come to in that, if you
>>> looked at for example mean there's special casing on empty on some
>>> on sizes.
>>> 15:30:55 There's
>>> 15:30:59 Sierra weights, and so on. And all of these, I think fall into
>>> categories of special types of error conditions that we already have in the
>>> standard library.
>>> 15:31:15 Like, whole errors, the main errors. Yes, that's we have for
>>> long, and even division by zero.
>>> 15:31:25 And so,
>>> 15:31:31 if you look at
>>> 15:31:35 this case of missing data that shows up in many cases like
>>> precocious and standard deviation all of these.
>>> 15:31:45 They are also, I find it much better to extend kind of input
>>> domain to love them.
>>> 15:31:53 And that's what most of the commercial tools and libraries do
>>> not the commercial tools, and various libraries do.
>>> 15:32:03 So for example, love, and stop by and all of these have some way
>>> to return, but it always get the value back.
>>> 15:32:14 And there's no exceptions or problems, usually in any of these
>>> kinds of cases,
>>> 15:32:25 Even then C sharp, those libraries use, not as a way of returning
>>> 15:32:33 problematic conditions, so.
>>> 15:32:48 Yeah.
>>> 15:32:48 Yeah.
>>> 15:32:50 And then also, if you think of
>>> 15:32:55 how these things.
>>> 15:32:59 If we are going to use these functions as cornerstones to or
>>> building blocks for more advanced algorithms like machine learning stuff
>>> for image processing or whatever.
>>> 15:33:14 And there's going to be like higher order functions operating on
>>> them.
>>> 15:33:19 And usually mass is not expected to throw exceptions, so that
>>> that is probably going to annoy a lot of people. There's also a large
>>> fraction of c++ developers that don't have, except just like
>>> enabled, and I.
>>> 15:33:39 There's some statistics on that, but I would assume or.
>>> 15:33:46 I'm pretty sure that the people who are really doing the miracle
>>> computations, have a much larger fractional.
>>> 15:33:57 We probably need to disable exceptions.
>>> 15:33:59 So, in addition to that, if you think about the freestanding
>>> stuff, as in this, the freestanding limitation stuff.
>>> 15:34:12 You don't have exceptions. And if we completely avoid exceptions
>>> and do us the other libraries to return, like, Mom, or another mechanism to
>>> the return missing values.
>>> 15:34:26 That also allows it to be used on Google Docs or.
>>> 15:34:32 Most of these kinds of things are done on GPUs.
>>> 15:34:37 Now we're soon.
>>> 15:34:42 Yeah, that's kind of the.
>>> 15:34:49 There's one like side notes that it's interesting that many come
>>> to the same conclusion us, as this paper does, which is reassuring
>>> regarding how to deal with integer inputs like even like
>>> 15:35:10 ups, or.
>>> 15:35:14 Let's see what else I think like, even the pythons, much like
>>> shows they convert into your inputs expected double what floats are kept us
>>> blows.
>>> 15:35:27 And I find it interesting because that's the same the same as
>>> proposed in the paper.
>>> 15:35:35 That's, I think the only way to kind of actually make it work.
>>> But it's interesting because kind of makes it not a generic kind of thing.
>>> 15:35:59 It's really kind of a special case in there extolled the work
>>> within yourself.
>>> 15:36:01 Yeah so
>>> 15:36:04 conclusion is basically try to return. Mom, or in exactly us
>>> existing math functions to go through each of the functions of specify what
>>> is the safest hetero value to return in each case, for example, if you're
>>> if you return, like.
>>> 15:36:31 So the most common is to return nom or sample, the causes of the
>>> few values and that is really.
>>> 15:36:43 I mean, for example at my company we're always right, we have
>>> our search, have a special rules relating to how you write your research
>>> you always have to be with the possibility of Norman and the search.
>>> 15:36:56 If you, If you keep things.
>>> 15:37:00 You understand how to work with non, then this is extremely
>>> powerful.
>>> 15:37:08 Since we are only actually only working with really supporting
>>> talking points.
>>> 15:37:16 I think this really makes sense.
>>> 15:37:24 Yeah.
>>> 15:37:24 I think that's the summary of
>>> 15:37:28 the paper.
>>> 15:37:31 All right, questions from people.
>>> 15:37:39 One of the things that we've we, in fact, A lot of things in
>>> SaaS we've.
>>> 15:37:49 And I've been the one to introduce c++ at the core of where SAS
>>> has a lot of their analytics.
>>> 15:37:59 And in fact that a part of this they do turn on the exceptions,
>>> the frying pan exceptions to catch these things and it's been something
>>> that we've had, you know, we're kind of in process of dealing with, I
>>> think, in fact, one of the things that we've
>>> 15:38:14 had to deal with is the difference between what the existing C
>>> code does vs GPU code, which is just to evaluate some of these things. Some
>>> of the things as a Nan within GPU because it doesn't have the concept of
>>> floating point exceptions and Larry is
>>> 15:38:42 not pushing on this one, a fair amount.
>>> 15:38:48 pushing on this one, a fair amount. And to be able to
>>> essentially, turn off the, the floating point exceptions because within the
>>> seat code, what they'll do is they'll, they'll catch that and then try to
>>> do something with it.
>>> 15:39:02 And so I think what I'm doing is I'm
>>> 15:39:08 endorsing what you're saying that we shouldn't be. And there's
>>> also a little bit of a confusion between c++ exceptions and and hardware
>>> exceptions. And I tend to refer to the hardware exceptions as more dealing
>>> like signals or hardware signals to help
>>> 15:39:31 separate the terminology between those two.
>>> 15:39:39 And I don't know.
>>> 15:39:42 I don't have a sense of how other companies are or what other
>>> companies might do in terms of turning on the hardware exceptions to catch
>>> these things.
>>> 15:39:57 Do what and what are their.
>>> 15:40:01 The,
>>> 15:40:07 the stats exception being used, I don't recall in what cases are
>>> those expecting to be thrown.
>>> 15:40:17 Yeah, I can share ideas share again.
>>> 15:40:22 It's really these categories, it's empty or to label data
>>> 15:40:31 or coal, other kinds of it's kind of the same thing as division
>>> by zero so I just clump that up as a poll error because eventually leads to
>>> division by zero.
>>> 15:40:45 So the sum of the weights, is equal to zero. That could either
>>> be a precondition and would deal with it as other preconditions like
>>> contract and that contract.
>>> 15:40:58 I mean, we don't show except shows up on contracts. Usually, and.
>>> 15:41:11 And then,
>>> 15:41:10 yeah, so this is the domain error, like, square root of minus
>>> three.
>>> 15:41:17 It's matching sizes of two inputs like rates and values that is
>>> also contract violation in other algorithms, I don't think it should be an
>>> exception here.
>>> 15:41:33 Okay.
>>> 15:41:41 Yeah, go ahead. Look. Now that's it.
>>> 15:41:39 I just wanted to clarify I heard two different two different
>>> things.
>>> 15:41:43 Phil was talking about hardware exceptions. I think the original
>>> comment about not having exceptions available was with respect to compiling
>>> with F no exceptions.
>>> 15:41:53 Not anything At the hardware level.
>>> 15:41:57 Am I right,
>>> 15:42:04 there are
>>> 15:42:08 there are different things.
>>> 15:42:14 queued up for example. Currently there's no GPU that supports a
>>> hardware exceptions. Then there. Then we have the people who turn off c++
>>> exceptions but they may still have like floating point tracking stuff going
>>> on, or on Windows you can turn on c++
>>> 15:42:28 exceptions but still have the same mechanism similar kinds of
>>> exceptions that signal out of bounds reads in the stack and stuff like
>>> that. But, and then you have these, which is called.
>>> 15:42:46 I mean, this math error signaling, which is math error handling.
>>> 15:42:54 It's actually when describe that to see that the reference.
>>> 15:42:58 Bottom well described it lists all these different kinds of
>>> conditions, and you can in your implementation, decide if you want to have
>>> like signaling, and how we want to possibly catch that somehow, but yeah.
>>> 15:43:17 No, I understand all of that what I was referring to is your
>>> original statement was that there are statistics that show that people,
>>> people do not have exceptions available I thought that was in reference to
>>> people using c++ exceptions not hardware level
>>> 15:43:30 signal later yeah yeah that's turning off the exceptions from
>>> there.
>>> 15:43:34 Okay. And I don't think that's what Phil was referring to you're
>>> not trying to run exceptions on the GPU or anything so, Yeah, I think we're
>>> in agreement
>>> 15:43:47 and guide Davidson, please.
>>> 15:43:51 I'm just thinking a bit of clarification here about half no
>>> exceptions. And I've been meaning to ask this for some time now. When I'm a
>>> visual studio user I used to the marks official C compiler, visual c++
>>> compiler.
>>> 15:44:04 And when we turn off exceptions what we're actually turning off
>>> is exception handling. So exceptions are thrown but they can't be caught is
>>> is F no exceptions, which I presume is climate GCC difference in that way
>>> does it actually forbid throwing because
>>> 15:44:18 for example, all my current exception me is turned off I can
>>> still throw it just caught by the.
>>> 15:44:27 If the translation unit you're using has a throw it will copy it
>>> will not compile.
>>> 15:44:32 Right. Okay, so if you link to something that has throws, then
>>> it will just, it will just terminate.
>>> 15:44:40 Right, so it sort of depends on which point you're in but yes it
>>> will prevent you from using throw in a translation unit where it's enabled,
>>> and it will cause unexpected results Hey them to something that had.
>>> 15:44:53 Okay, thanks for lunch.
>>> 15:45:00 Okay.
>>> 15:45:02 More questions.
>>> 15:45:09 I. Are you, are we comfortable with publishing this paper so is
>>> it just to make sure I understand. Let's say you're, you're adding
>>> exceptions to the error handling.
>>> 15:45:22 In this paper it's a friendly amendment really to the stats
>>> paper.
>>> 15:45:30 You could say that it's a hostile amendment, because I'm trying
>>> to remove exceptions from. I'm trying to completely remove the stats that
>>> are exceptional from the paper and replace it with specify the return
>>> values in all cases, I think that makes a lot
>>> 15:45:48 of sense. I think it would make it much more compostable you
>>> would be able to write log of
>>> 15:45:59 ketosis. And you don't care if it's the log or if Potosi starts
>>> with us.
>>> 15:46:12 That gives you some by Sierra or you will just get step number
>>> if no matter what.
>>> 15:46:14 So, so that I would not say it's a, it's, it's up to you to
>>> decide, but it's not family, I think, Okay.
>>> 15:46:25 Has Richard looks at this
>>> 15:46:29 person doesn't
>>> 15:46:33 or doesn't mean it's it's just off the press, so it's Yes, I
>>> haven't heard any feedback and I don't think right no one else read it's
>>> really.
>>> 15:46:43 So what's going to happen is if we publish this, they're going
>>> to basically asked for feedback from Richard, because this is really
>>> against his paper.
>>> 15:46:54 I think that
>>> 15:46:58 if you can hold off another month, and have Richard, give
>>> feedback on this.
>>> 15:47:05 That would, I mean I can't stop you from publishing I think it's
>>> fine but it's if you can hold off another month and wait until the next 15
>>> which would be June 15, then that means that we'll have another cycle, and
>>> look at this and get riches feedback,
>>> 15:47:19 then we might be able to
>>> 15:47:24 say that this should go. This, this, because with that then we
>>> can add his feedback to the paper as well you can you can summarize this
>>> feedback and the feedback from the group and add it to the paper.
>>> 15:47:38 I got it totally wrong. I originally thought this was a met
>>> friendly amendment, but because it's a it's a hostile amendment. Well
>>> that's going to happen is they're going to come back to us and ask what did
>>> you, what did you think of this.
>>> 15:47:50 And if we say well we haven't had time to look at it, then we'll
>>> look like we haven't done our job.
>>> 15:47:56 So, I think, I mean I have, I have joined this very late so
>>> that's okay yeah that's just how it is. I mean, that's just how it is. But
>>> I would, I would really like to just to put it out there, because I think
>>> I'm kind of done with it, and I'm not sure
>>> 15:48:17 if I can practice. I mean now I have some energy and time.
>>> 15:48:30 I'm not sure what happens like what right. Okay, if you put it
>>> out there. I'm SG six will look at it, or while they don't actually look at
>>> it because they don't have any online meetings, so they will look at it, it
>>> will come back to SG 19 which is fine
>>> 15:48:40 you can go ahead and publish it, which means that we will look
>>> at it again next month. And with Richard here and get feedback, and there's
>>> nothing there that's that's progressing to the next stage, which is also
>>> fine so I think I'm fine if you want to
>>> 15:48:54 publish it. I'm just saying that if you want to hold up that's
>>> also fine so I want to see what guy says Go ahead.
>>> 15:49:02 I just want to speak and supportive, your hands favor.
>>> 15:49:06 I agree that's Richard I think Richard is is overusing
>>> exceptions and the sort of way that has cancelled against in 0709.
>>> 15:49:18 Setting exceptions. I think that exceptions maybe being used as
>>> as yet your ancestors were pre and post conditions would be more
>>> appropriate contract violation to be more appropriate, or simply undefined
>>> behavior if the if the user supplies the wrong
>>> 15:49:31 inputs, then we should be throwing exceptions, we should be just
>>> saying that's that's on you.
>>> 15:49:37 Okay, good feedback.
>>> 15:49:41 I think in that case and.
>>> 15:49:44 Are there any other feedback so in that case I'm going to ask
>>> for vote then on this paper to go out and.
>>> 15:49:52 And if it goes out that's fine because the heading says, Come to
>>> SG 19. So that means that next month you have to come back anyway you're.
>>> Hopefully you can, yeah.
>>> 15:50:04 i.
>>> 15:50:03 Yeah. To be honest, I didn't expect to be able to have it all, I
>>> thought, okay, I'll maybe I'll get it off to the 15th and just have it out,
>>> and then we'll see what happens.
>>> 15:50:22 So, so, having the possibility to discuss it here. Let's save us
>>> some time but I still actually don't know that I have written.
>>> 15:50:24 Okay, good. All right.
>>> 15:50:25 Mike only. Yeah, go ahead.
>>> 15:50:29 Wouldn't be recycled.
>>> 15:50:34 Yes, absolutely. We can start it right away. And, and it could
>>> be it could be ongoing publishing this does not mean that this is a done
>>> deal. It's just first iteration.
>>> 15:50:47 So you've already got a number it's three p 2376 or zero, and
>>> that's fine. And since you're targeting only these two groups, it means
>>> that library evolution won't grab ahold of it yet, and that's that's that's
>>> good, that's that's what I want.
>>> 15:51:04 That's that's what I want. Exactly. That's what I want to, I
>>> just want them to grab ahold of paper that that's that's, you know, so,
>>> until we say that okay yeah this, we can say what are we integrated with
>>> Richard style or not that's fine.
>>> 15:51:15 Okay. So, are there any other discussions and questions on this,
>>> we actually only got about nine minutes left so we definitely won't have
>>> time to get to anything else I think I would like to just, I mean, I
>>> assume, no one in here actually read it.
>>> 15:51:40 Really yet, because it's just came out, maybe someone did that.
>>> But
>>> 15:51:53 I think I explained myself better text them dumbing
>>> 15:51:45 them in a foreign language.
>>> 15:51:50 So, so it's easier. Yeah, so, yeah.
>>> 15:51:52 Okay, no you, you did a great job, no worries that there's some
>>> procedural things that I was just trying to enlighten so.
>>> 15:52:00 So what is this paper number it's p.
>>> 15:52:06 272376760.
>>> 15:52:13 He published
>>> 15:52:16 for sg 1966 right.
>>> 15:52:25 Okay.
>>> 15:52:32 I just want to ask a question.
>>> 15:52:36 Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, ask your question, we are insofar as
>>> how this paper affects the stats paper we aren't actually therefore
>>> suggesting any changes in the stats paper at this point.
>>> 15:52:47 No, no.
>>> 15:52:51 But there might be changes that's going to be negotiated if we
>>> after our review next month.
>>> 15:52:56 Okay. Yeah.
>>> 15:52:58 Because that until we enact it and accept this paper we won't
>>> obviously yeah yeah hmm. If I I'm I'll chat with Richard, on occasion. So
>>> do you have any problem with me just giving him a heads up on this.
>>> 15:53:16 Just let him know that you've got this in process, no no that's.
>>> 15:53:23 It is this on mentioned on the mailing list and it's okay.
>>> 15:53:30 Okay, so this is mostly.
>>> 15:53:35 I'm not entirely sure this is the, we don't even if you're going
>>> to, I mean we don't probably don't even need to really pull but maybe to
>>> useful for you though, I think you'll find is, whether you think, I think,
>>> Okay, you know what I don't have a better
>>> 15:53:47 point I was going to say, move that this paper be published but
>>> you know what we don't need that Paul. I think you want to get a poll how
>>> many people feel that this is a good direction.
>>> 15:53:57 That's that would be nice. Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely. I mean,
>>> because I'm.
>>> 15:54:03 I mean, just to clarify, I mean, I don't expect to write
>>> anything like updates on this paper. I mean, so it's not, it's it's the
>>> stats paper that promotes this old stuff right so so feedback is eventually
>>> going to be.
>>> 15:54:22 To do that, but I would of course want to know what you think
>>> that is.
>>> 15:54:27 Yes.
>>> 15:54:28 So let me see if this work.
>>> 15:54:35 Did you see the pole.
>>> 15:54:37 Does everyone see the pole.
>>> 15:54:53 I don't
>>> 15:54:45 know I don't
>>> 15:54:48 know you will pull away I have to do this at the launch the
>>> poll. How about now. Yeah.
>>> 15:55:02 It's happening.
>>> 15:55:09 People are changing choices. It's cool.
>>> 15:55:12 Wait, wait, I got it. Can I feel like I don't see where I vote.
>>> I'm sorry.
>>> 15:55:18 Oh, because no you can't vote because your hose I'm gonna make
>>> you a non host, I believe.
>>> 15:55:24 Okay.
>>> 15:55:25 How about now can you see it. Yes. Okay, as a host I cannot
>>> vote. This is the job back on this system, but I'll just add just add
>>> myself in that one of the numbering system.
>>> 15:55:36 so I got five out of 12 strongly for.
>>> 15:55:39 Oh, is everything done, I think I can publish the results right.
>>> 15:55:43 Is everybody done voting.
>>> 15:55:46 Well I see the pole but when I, the submit button is grayed out.
>>> Oh well, I was I voted I voted 100,000% strongly yes, even the strike guy.
>>> 15:56:01 Um, are you able to show us. I'm not from mom and dad and
>>> honestly Michael but I'm wondering if you're able to show us the results of
>>> the poll. I'm going to try this is all an experiment you know I love
>>> experiment.
>>> 15:56:14 So, this is absolutely fabulous but, you know, follow me say Oh,
>>> these are the results and support.
>>> 15:56:19 Thank you very much. All right now going ahead and pulling and
>>> let's see what happens okay guys.
>>> 15:56:28 You guys see anything.
>>> 15:56:31 Well, there it is. What happened, what do you see, I don't want
>>> to tell me what you guys see results, 46%, probably for 38% or 15% mutual,
>>> not simply begins no concern strongly against, that's what we see.
>>> 15:56:47 All right.
>>> 15:56:48 Get tested century.
>>> 15:56:54 No more racing and no one knows what.
>>> 15:57:00 Okay, so do we have to add any, any votes that wasn't cast.
>>> 15:57:03 Larry said you didn't you didn't cast your vote right.
>>> 15:57:07 Yes, my Submit button was great out I can't.
>>> 15:57:11 Oh, it probably was because you were a co host so you casting
>>> strongly for.
>>> 15:57:16 I was like in the category right above strongly for okay so yeah
>>> so that makes it seven out of 13.
>>> 15:57:24 Yeah, we don't get to see the numbers here doing, how do how do
>>> we assess consensus with numbers.
>>> 15:57:36 well we don't see how many people have stained was a massive
>>> post and he was absolutely you'd have tracked it right because six people
>>> votes. Well seven people to strongly for five weekly for, we didn't, we
>>> didn't see those numbers and you see the numbers
>>> 15:57:46 what we said you don't see them. Okay, we only see this, I don't
>>> I do see the numbers, and I'm going to download the results and see what
>>> happens. I want to see what happens like download the results.
>>> 15:57:59 We obviously can't handle the actual raw data.
>>> 15:58:05 This is thrilling thrilling thrilling.
>>> 15:58:08 So what I saw. How about this, I'll do this I'll do this, I'll
>>> do this guy's I'll do. I'm going to I'm going to share screen.
>>> 15:58:16 And this.
>>> 15:58:17 That's, yes.
>>> 15:58:19 Okay, this is what I see on my screen.
>>> 15:58:22 You guys see this.
>>> 15:58:26 No.
>>> 15:58:27 Do you see the pole. No, no.
>>> 15:58:31 I see that you have many tabs open.
>>> 15:58:39 He's trying to read the entire internet.
>>> 15:58:45 You guys and I'm not trying to impress you with the amount.
>>> 15:58:51 But I think Michael, you know, probably has special ramp just
>>> for the tabs.
>>> 15:58:58 All right. We can't see the Paul Michael I'm sorry okay so you
>>> use, somehow it's only.
>>> 15:59:08 Um, yeah, so you guys only see the percentages you don't see the
>>> actual numbers. Okay. That's right. Alright, that's fine. I will tell you
>>> what the actual number that is I see that there's no way I can actually say
>>> it so I'll put it in the chat I got
>>> 15:59:18 six out of 13 but plus Larry that's seven out of 13 for strongly
>>> for so the gradation is strongly for weekly for neutral strongly against
>>> sorry weekly against strongly against.
>>> 15:59:36 Okay.
>>> 15:59:37 and the number I got was 75200. And that's out of 13 people on
>>> the call. So that means how many people abstains.
>>> 15:59:52 That's up to 14.
>>> 15:59:54 Oh sorry that's out of 14 people yeah so everybody voted nobody
>>> abstained.
>>> 16:00:00 Well you'll have look Berg is here twice. Yes, I only wanted once
>>> 16:00:07 that Paul was taken. Yes. Yeah.
>>> 16:00:09 Okay. So, Nevertheless, this is a very strongly.
>>> 16:00:14 A strong indication that a lot of people like your paper.
>>> 16:00:19 Okay, it's pretty good for our first paper going good.
>>> 16:00:23 Thanks.
>>> 16:00:26 Well you tackled a really like graphics.
>>> 16:00:35 For instance what linear algebra does because we're not the only
>>> numerical algorithms in the world here right.
>>> 16:00:39 So what else, What else we got any exceptions.
>>> 16:00:42 It's full up. If you get it. If you get that data, it's, it's on
>>> your head.
>>> 16:00:48 You know so so the standard will give you as much information as
>>> it possibly can about what the acceptable range of data, and what to expect
>>> it, you know we we really go the extra mile.
>>> 16:00:57 But if we throw exceptions, then you know that you're
>>> effectively saying, Do not use this library.
>>> 16:01:05 It's, you know, and I would be very sad if that happened.
>>> 16:01:10 Alright guys, I think we should stop but thank you, you guys.
>>> You guys have been great experimental subjects for all my little
>>> experiments.
>>> 16:01:23 All right, next week next week, I mean next month. We'll see you
>>> guys, same place. And I think we might be back to graphs, but looks like
>>> we're going to have put some, some reinforcement learning there and maybe
>>> this time we can do an update, but looks
>>> 16:01:38 like this, people will have.
>>> 16:01:41 Well, actually we could probably wait until the time slot for
>>> stats to review this paper, which will probably be the month after that so
>>> I'll get all the scheduling straight.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michael Wong <fraggamuffin_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SG19 Machine Learning 2 hours. This session will focus on Reinforcement
>>>> Learning and a review of Stats feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Michael Wong is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Topic: SG19 monthly Dec 2020-Feb 2021
>>>> Time: 02:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) 1800 UTC Stats
>>>> Every month on the Second Thu,
>>>> May 13, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Reinformaent Learning and Diff
>>>> Calculus
>>>> June 10, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Graph
>>>> Jul 8, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Stats and Combinatorics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
>>>> https://iso.zoom.us/j/93084591725?pwd=K3QxZjJlcnljaE13ZWU5cTlLNkx0Zz09
>>>> Password: 035530
>>>>
>>>> Or iPhone one-tap :
>>>> US: +13017158592,,93084591725# or +13126266799,,93084591725#
>>>> Or Telephone:
>>>> Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current
>>>> location):
>>>> US: +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1
>>>> 408 638 0968 or +1 646 876 9923 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782
>>>> or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free)
>>>> Meeting ID: 930 8459 1725
>>>> Password: 035530
>>>> International numbers available: https://iso.zoom.us/u/agewu4X97
>>>>
>>>> Or Skype for Business (Lync):
>>>> https://iso.zoom.us/skype/93084591725
>>>>
>>>> Agenda:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Opening and introductions
>>>>
>>>> The ISO Code of conduct:
>>>> https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100397.pdf
>>>> The IEC Code of Conduct:
>>>>
>>>> https://basecamp.iec.ch/download/iec-code-of-conduct-for-delegates-and-experts/
>>>>
>>>> ISO patent policy.
>>>>
>>>> https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Policy.htm?nodeid=6344764&vernum=-2
>>>>
>>>> The WG21 Practices and Procedures and Code of Conduct:
>>>>
>>>> https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practices-and-procedures
>>>>
>>>> 1.1 Roll call of participants
>>>>
>>>> 1.2 Adopt agenda
>>>>
>>>> 1.3 Approve minutes from previous meeting, and approve publishing
>>>> previously approved minutes to ISOCPP.org
>>>>
>>>> 1.4 Action items from previous meetings
>>>>
>>>> 2. Main issues (125 min)
>>>>
>>>> 2.1 General logistics
>>>>
>>>> Meeting plan, focus on one paper per meeting but does not preclude other
>>>> paper updates:
>>>>
>>>> May 13, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Reinformaent Learning and Diff
>>>> Calculus
>>>> June 10, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Graph
>>>> Jul 8, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Stats and Combinatorics
>>>>
>>>> ISO meeting status
>>>>
>>>> future C++ Std meetings
>>>>
>>>> 2.2 Paper reviews
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.1: ML topics
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.1.1 Graph Proposal Phil Ratsloff et al
>>>>
>>>> P1709R1: Graph Proposal for Machine Learning
>>>>
>>>> P1709R3:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kLHhbSTX7j0tPeTYECQFSNx3R35Mu3xO5_dyYdRy4dM/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkfDzGyfNQKs86y053M0YHOLP6frzhTJqzg1Ug_vkkE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2119r0.html>
>>>>
>>>> <
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/175wIm8o4BNGti0WLq8U6uZORegKVjmnpfc-_E8PoGS0/edit?ts=5fff27cd#heading=h.9ogkehmdmtel
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.1.2 Reinforcement Learning Larry Lewis Jorge Silva
>>>>
>>>> Reinforcement Learning proposal:
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.1.3 Differential Calculs:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/175wIm8o4BNGti0WLq8U6uZORegKVjmnpfc-_E8PoGS0/edit?ts=5fff27cd#heading=h.9ogkehmdmtel
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.1.4: Stats paper
>>>>
>>>> Current github
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/475
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/979
>>>>
>>>> Stats review Richard Dosselman et al
>>>>
>>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p1708r4.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Feedback from Johan Lundberg and Oleksandr Korval
>>>>
>>>> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2376R0.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P1708R3: Math proposal for Machine Learning: 3rd review
>>>>
>>>> PXXXX: combinatorics: 1st Review
>>>>
>>>> > std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1708r2
>>>> > above is the stats paper that was reviewed in Prague
>>>> > http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21prague/P1708R2SG19
>>>> >
>>>> > Review Jolanta Polish feedback.
>>>> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2119r0.html
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.3 any other proposal for reviews?
>>>>
>>>> 2.3 Other Papers and proposals
>>>>
>>>> P1416R1: SG19 - Linear Algebra for Data Science and Machine Learning
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IKUNiUhBgRURW-UkspK7fAAyIhfXuMxjk7xKikK4Yp8/edit#heading=h.tj9hitg7dbtr
>>>>
>>>> P1415: Machine Learning Layered list
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1elNFdIXWoetbxjO1OKol_Wj8fyi4Z4hogfj5tLVSj64/edit#heading=h.tj9hitg7dbtr
>>>>
>>>> 2.2.2 SG14 Linear Algebra progress:
>>>> Different layers of proposal
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1poXfr7mUPovJC9ZQ5SDVM_1Nb6oYAXlK_d0ljdUAtSQ/edit
>>>>
>>>> 2.5 Future F2F meetings:
>>>>
>>>> 2.6 future C++ Standard meetings:
>>>> https://isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation/upcoming-meetings
>>>>
>>>> None
>>>>
>>>> 3. Any other business
>>>>
>>>> New reflector
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19
>>>>
>>>> Old Reflector
>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!newtopic/sg19
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/sg14>
>>>>
>>>> Code and proposal Staging area
>>>>
>>>> 4. Review
>>>>
>>>> 4.1 Review and approve resolutions and issues [e.g., changes to SG's
>>>> working draft]
>>>>
>>>> 4.2 Review action items (5 min)
>>>>
>>>> 5. Closing process
>>>>
>>>> 5.1 Establish next agenda
>>>>
>>>> TBD
>>>>
>>>> 5.2 Future meeting
>>>>
>>>> June 10, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Graph
>>>> Jul 8, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Stats and Combinatorics
>>>>
>>> --
>>> SG19 mailing list
>>> SG19_at_[hidden]
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19
>>>
>> --
>> SG19 mailing list
>> SG19_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19
>>
>



-----------------------------------------------------
This e-mail was sent via the Secure Web Server at the
University of Regina, Department of Computer Science
          https://www.cs.uregina.ca/WebMail/