On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 11:45 AM Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 30, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, 29 October 2025 Frederick Virchanza Gotham wrote:
> > >
> > > How about if 'is_trivially_relocatable_v' were to be taken out and
> replaced
> > > with 'relocatability_v':
> >
> > Write a paper and write to your National Standards Body representative to
> > submit an issue against the committee draft. Anything else is pointless,
> > because the language for relocatability has already been approved and
> merged
> > into the Draft Standard.
>
>
> I've attached to this email a draft HTML paper for "consteval int
> relocatability".
>
> Here's a download link also for the latest draft:
>
> http://www.virjacode.com/papers/relocatability.htm
>
> The Kona meeting for trivial relocation is in six days' time . . .
> Should I submit an 'issue' to the committee before then? I think the
> ongoing disagreement and confusion about what the word 'trivial'
> should mean is heavy enough to warrant submitting an issue.
>

There is no need to submit another issue about "some people think that
relocatable means memcpyable". We already have national body comments about
that, which will be considered in Kona. In Kona there probably won't be any
time to consider any issues that are not national body comments.


> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>

-- 
*Brian Bi*