On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 16:33, Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:18 AM Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Il 09/07/21 08:49, Justin Bassett ha scritto:
>> > Thanks for the insight. I don't know much about the different working
>> > groups. What are the different groups, and what does it mean if I target
>> > them (other than putting them under "Audience")? How do I know which
>> > groups to target?
>>
>> Please see here:
>> https://isocpp.org/std/the-committee
>>
>> I'm far from an expert in the area, but you're proposing design changes
>> to both language and library, so you should target the respective
>> Evolution groups, and possibly their Incubators study groups.
>
>
> I'm also not an expert. :) My understanding is that for the purposes of the "Audience" field, literally all you have to do is categorize your paper as one of three kinds: "CWG," "LWG," or both. Once you've marked your paper appropriately as "CWG" and/or "LWG", then that specific paper's progress through the EWGI->EWG->CWG and/or LEWGI/LEWG/LWG funnels will be tracked in real time by
> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues

I am an expert, and that's wholly incorrect. This paper should have
EWG as its target audience; while the nullopt part
of it is library-only, it's proposing the general extension that the
special null types for nullable handles become comparable,
and doing so across library types and built-in types.

The paper's motivation is vague, without any practical examples where
such comparisons would be useful, let alone
important to have.