Topic: Chances for discussing N3526 at Chicago meeting?
Author: Michael Price - Dev <michael.b.price.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Raw View
------=_Part_4108_11334066.1371498032941
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
N3526 - Uniform initialization for arrays and class aggregate types (link<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3526.html>),
was not discussed in Bristol (I assume since I couldn't attend and failed
to find an advocate for it). I consider it to be on the verge of a defect,
but it was forwarded to EWG for consideration instead. I am trying to
decide whether I should attend the Chicago meeting to see if it can be
brought up (and hopefully voted in).
I've heard that the only changes from here on out for C++14 will have to be
at the request of national bodies, and I would be fine with going through
that route if I must.
I'd appreciate any and all input.
Thanks,
Michael Price
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_4108_11334066.1371498032941
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
N3526 - Uniform initialization for arrays and class aggregate types (<a hre=
f=3D"http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3526.html">li=
nk</a>), was not discussed in Bristol (I assume since I couldn't attend and=
failed to find an advocate for it). I consider it to be on the verge=
of a defect, but it was forwarded to EWG for consideration instead. =
I am trying to decide whether I should attend the Chicago meeting to see if=
it can be brought up (and hopefully voted in).<br><div><br></div><div>I've=
heard that the only changes from here on out for C++14 will have to be at =
the request of national bodies, and I would be fine with going through that=
route if I must.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd appreciate any and all input=
..</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Michael Price</=
div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.<br />
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
------=_Part_4108_11334066.1371498032941--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:47:53 +0300
Raw View
--20cf303b3aef4c3ba504df5edfd0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 17 June 2013 22:40, Michael Price - Dev <michael.b.price.dev@gmail.com>wrote:
> N3526 - Uniform initialization for arrays and class aggregate types (link<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3526.html>),
> was not discussed in Bristol (I assume since I couldn't attend and failed
> to find an advocate for it). I consider it to be on the verge of a defect,
> but it was forwarded to EWG for consideration instead. I am trying to
> decide whether I should attend the Chicago meeting to see if it can be
> brought up (and hopefully voted in).
>
> I've heard that the only changes from here on out for C++14 will have to
> be at the request of national bodies, and I would be fine with going
> through that route if I must.
>
> I'd appreciate any and all input.
>
Oh, pardon me for not conveying the feedback. The notes for it from Bristol
are
"Stroustrup thought that the proposal is too aggressive and removes
structure, and thought that the existing limitations are deliberate.
Stroustrup and Sutton also pointed out that there are existing matrix types
that deduce the shape of the matrix from the initializers, and this change
would break such existing code.
No recommendation to move forward, considered NAD."
This status is also caught in
http://cplusplus.github.io/EWG/ewg-closed.html#53
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
--20cf303b3aef4c3ba504df5edfd0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On 17 June 2013 22:40, Michael Price - Dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:michael.b.price.dev@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">michael.b.=
price.dev@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">N3526 - Uniform initializ=
ation for arrays and class aggregate types (<a href=3D"http://www.open-std.=
org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3526.html" target=3D"_blank">link</a>)=
, was not discussed in Bristol (I assume since I couldn't attend and fa=
iled to find an advocate for it). =A0I consider it to be on the verge of a =
defect, but it was forwarded to EWG for consideration instead. =A0I am tryi=
ng to decide whether I should attend the Chicago meeting to see if it can b=
e brought up (and hopefully voted in).<br>
<div><br></div><div>I've heard that the only changes from here on out f=
or C++14 will have to be at the request of national bodies, and I would be =
fine with going through that route if I must.</div><div><br></div><div>
I'd appreciate any and all input.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>Oh, pardon me for not conveying the feedback. The notes for it from Bristo=
l are<br><br>"Stroustrup thought that the proposal is too aggressive a=
nd removes=20
structure, and thought that the existing limitations are deliberate.
Stroustrup and Sutton also pointed out that there are existing matrix=20
types that deduce the shape of the matrix from the initializers,
and this change would break such existing code.
<p>
No recommendation to move forward, considered NAD."</p><p>This status =
is also caught in <a href=3D"http://cplusplus.github.io/EWG/ewg-closed.html=
#53">http://cplusplus.github.io/EWG/ewg-closed.html#53</a><br></p><p><br>
</p><p><br></p></div></div><br></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.<br />
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
--20cf303b3aef4c3ba504df5edfd0--
.