C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Notes of the 2021-01-22 meeting of SG20
From: JC van Winkel (jcvw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-28 14:47:55


Here are the notes of our January 22 meeting.

Many thanks to our scribe Robert Douglas!


01/2021 Minutes
JC: JC Van Winkel (chair)
FS: Florian
PK: Peter Kulczycki
MA: Michael Adams
RD: Robert Douglas (scribing)
CDB: Christopher DiBella

Find scribe
Roll call of participants
Adopt Agenda
Proposals in the works
Tentively Ready topics
Requires Expressions https://github.com/cplusplus/SG20/pull/58
In the works topics
Any further business
Meeting time

Issue 40 PR 56
FS: Reviewing PR for Default Parameters
Believe ready to merge Default Parameters. One comment remaining.
RD: Should I apply the alternative wording?
JC: Would prefer to get to a stable state
MA: Agree
Group: RD to apply alternative wording. FS to handle merge thereafter

RD: When should we utilize "Resolve" feature in github PRs?
FS: Suggest doing so when having reasonable faith that it's resolved.

Issue 28 PR 58
FS: CDB and Arthur O'Dwyer had a long conversation in here. Would like the
two to approve. Thinks it's in a good-enough state to get it into the
RD: I'd like help augmenting the example in question to make it more
CDB: It's convoluted and obvious. Needs an english wording of the problem.
RD: I'm ok either waiting to have this example to merge or merging and then
JC: Also ok merging then adding
MA: (on chat) Agrees
RD to take offline with CDB for some english wording. Will merge 58 in the
mean time.

Issue 19 PR 62
FS: Not yet ready for TR, but could be in such a point for next time.
RD: Lesson learned from this, we might want instructions to future authors
to not delete skeleton instructions
FS: I'd like us to be careful with the informal word "contract" while
working on
FS: Should we consider using typesetting?
CDB: Perhaps we should use stable names to remove ambiguity. Some features
won't have keywords to have typeset in code font
RD: I'd like to avoid directing people to the standard, if possible.
Similar objection to relying on persistent web links
MA: Could we add a glossary?
Group: Likes the idea of glossary
RD and FS: Make glossary a separate markdown file and use markdown links
with anchors?
CDB: Would like to return to discussion of glossary later this meeting

CDB: static_assert PR uses word "Test". This word has power within
Australian educational system. Similar for "describe", "synthesize", and
"compose". Would like to introduce something that gives us words of power
in student-should-be-able-to.
JC: Like 'must', 'shall', and 'may' in standard?
FS: I like the idea, but caution against being too explicit, to avoid
getting toward being a standardese-like document.
CDB: I will write a proposal for this. Would like to see multiple, distinct
types of glossaries.

Topics Reminders
FS: RD still has soft-lock on Pass-by-value and pass-by-reference

Meeting times
JC: There's a request to have this at a different time
CDB: this time is doable but not optimal. Suggesting pushing back 1 hr for
west coast US or several hours.
JC: It's impossible to find a time that works for all time zones. If people
are getting shut out, we should look to having an additional meeting at a
second time.
CDB: Second meeting could make sense. Would pushing back an hour work?
Present members discussing
CDB: Happy to keep as-is given informal feedback

SG20 list run by sg20-owner@lists.isocpp.org

Older Archives on Google Groups