Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 16:44:52 -0400
On Aug 25, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Ted Lyngmo <ted_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> *If* I go ahead and write a proposal for this, should I make it only about these freestanding function templates or should I go for the unique_multilock (for lack of a better name) in the same paper? I'm guessing it's easier to get approval the more specific it is, so the unique_multilock should be saved for later, right?
I think either approach could work. You never know with the committee. My personal success rate when I was at the top of my game was only about 50%.
I recommend that you drop “freestanding” from all of your descriptions going forward as that word means something else in the C++ standard. “Namespace-scope” is probably a better term for what you mean.
Howard
>
> *If* I go ahead and write a proposal for this, should I make it only about these freestanding function templates or should I go for the unique_multilock (for lack of a better name) in the same paper? I'm guessing it's easier to get approval the more specific it is, so the unique_multilock should be saved for later, right?
I think either approach could work. You never know with the committee. My personal success rate when I was at the top of my game was only about 50%.
I recommend that you drop “freestanding” from all of your descriptions going forward as that word means something else in the C++ standard. “Namespace-scope” is probably a better term for what you mean.
Howard
Received on 2025-08-25 20:45:25