Topic: Recall: Nested namespace definition proposal
Author: "Robert Kawulak" <tigrisek@interia.pl>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:55:15 +0100
Raw View
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CF4B88.CE3EC790
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Robert Kawulak would like to recall the message, "Nested namespace definition
proposal".
--
---
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/.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CF4B88.CE3EC790
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="winmail.dat"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------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CF4B88.CE3EC790--
.
Author: Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Raw View
------=_Part_135_26079208.1396206311918
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Robert,
I've prepared a draft wording for you if you are interested:
======== CUT HERE =========
(A) Add to [namespace.def] and [gram.dcl]:
namespace-definition:
*nested-namespace-definition*
named-namespace-definition
unnamed-namespace-definition
*nested-namespace-definition*:
*namespace* *nested-namespace-specifier* *::* identifier *{*namespace-body
*}*
*nested-namespace-specifier*:
identifier
*nested-namespace-specifier* *::* identifier
(B) Add new paragraph to [namespace.def]:
X. A *nested-namespace-definition* with a *nested-namespace-specifier* *N*,
*identifier* *I* and namespace-body *B* is identical (by definition) to *namespace
N { namespace I { B } }*
======== CUT HERE =========
This is a little more constrained than what you propose. It doesn't
support inline namespaces as I think it would be ambiguous whether it
applies to the outer or inner namespace. If you want to open a nested
inline namespace you can just use the normal longer notation. Leaving this
ill-formed also means we can add it later. It also doesn't support a
nested namespace alias definition as I think this is confusing and not
really demanded. Again, leaving it ill-formed means we can add it later.
No qualified name lookup occurs on the identifier, so namespace aliases
are not considered. I think this is what you want.
If you put this proposal in the next mailing I am happy to present it to
EWG for you at the next meeting in Rapperswil in case you are not attending
and don't have someone to present it.
Thanks,
Andrew.
On Saturday, March 29, 2014 7:55:15 PM UTC+1, Robert Kawulak wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've written a draft proposal for nested namespace definitions (attached
> to this
> message). I'd like to hear your comments and suggestions.
>
> In short, the paper proposes allowing to use a qualified name in a
> namespace
> definition to define several nested namespaces at once, for example:
>
> namespace A::B::C {
> //...
> }
>
> The code above would be equivalent to:
>
> namespace A {
> namespace B {
> namespace C {
> //...
> }
> }
> }
>
> Best regards,
> Robert Kawulak
>
--
---
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_135_26079208.1396206311918
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>Hi Robert,</div><div><br></div><div>I've prepare=
d a draft wording for you if you are interested:</div><div><br></div><div>=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CUT HERE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div><div><br=
></div><div>(A) Add to [namespace.def] and [gram.dcl]:</div><div><br></div>=
<div> namespace-definition:</div><div> &nb=
sp; <u>nested-namespace-definition</u></div><div>  =
; named-namespace-definition</div><div> unnamed-=
namespace-definition</div><div><br></div><div> <u>nested-names=
pace-definition</u>:</div><div> <b>namespace</b>=
<u>nested-namespace-specifier</u> <b>::</b> identifier <b>{</b> namespace-=
body <b>}</b></div><div><br></div><div> <u>nested-namespace-sp=
ecifier</u>:</div><div> identifier</div><div>&nb=
sp; <u>nested-namespace-specifier</u> <b>::</b> identi=
fier</div><div><br></div><div>(B) Add new paragraph to [namespace.def]:</di=
v><div><br></div><div>X. A <i>nested-namespace-definition</i> with a <i>nes=
ted-namespace-specifier</i> <b>N</b>, <i>identifier</i> <b>I</b> and namesp=
ace-body <b>B</b> is identical (by definition) to <b>namespace N { namespac=
e I { B } }</b></div><div><br></div><div>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CUT HERE =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div><div><br></div><div>This is a little more =
constrained than what you propose. It doesn't support inline namespac=
es as I think it would be ambiguous whether it applies to the outer or inne=
r namespace. If you want to open a nested inline namespace you can ju=
st use the normal longer notation. Leaving this ill-formed also means=
we can add it later. It also doesn't support a nested namespace alia=
s definition as I think this is confusing and not really demanded. Ag=
ain, leaving it ill-formed means we can add it later. No qualified na=
me lookup occurs on the identifier, so namespace aliases are not considered=
.. I think this is what you want.</div><div><br></div><div>If you put =
this proposal in the next mailing I am happy to present it to EWG for you a=
t the next meeting in Rapperswil in case you are not attending and don't ha=
ve someone to present it.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Andrew=
..</div><div><br></div><br>On Saturday, March 29, 2014 7:55:15 PM UTC+1, Rob=
ert Kawulak wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;marg=
in-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Dear all,
<br>
<br>I've written a draft proposal for nested namespace definitions (attache=
d to this
<br>message). I'd like to hear your comments and suggestions.
<br>
<br>In short, the paper proposes allowing to use a qualified name in a name=
space
<br>definition to define several nested namespaces at once, for example:=20
<br>
<br> namespace A::B::C {
<br> //...
<br> }
<br> =20
<br>The code above would be equivalent to:=20
<br>
<br> namespace A {
<br> namespace B {
<br> namespace C {
<br> //...
<br> }
<br> }
<br> }
<br>
<br>Best regards,
<br>Robert Kawulak
<br></blockquote></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 <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<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 />
------=_Part_135_26079208.1396206311918--
.
Author: Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 05:15:35 +0200
Raw View
> From: Andrew Tomazos
> I've prepared a draft wording for you if you are interested:
Thanks, this will surely be helpful.
> It doesn't support inline namespaces as I think it would be
> ambiguous whether it applies to the outer or inner namespace.
> If you want to open a nested inline namespace you can just
> use the normal longer notation.
That's exactly my thought, but let's see what are the commenters'/committee's opinions.
> If you put this proposal in the next mailing I am happy to
> present it to EWG for you at the next meeting in Rapperswil in
> case you are not attending and don't have someone to present it.
That's great, thank you.
Best regards,
Robert
--
---
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/.
.
Author: Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:00:46 +0200
Raw View
--089e013c66e2d1021f04fc83c86e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Robert, [Cc: std-proposals]
I did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution
Working Group in Rapperswil.
My interpretation of the votes was that there was a clear and strong
consensus for the basic feature, but there wasn't clear consensus for the
extra features (inline namespaces, attributes, namespace aliases).
I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic feature to Core in the
next mailing. If we leave the extra features ill-formed, we can always add
them later.
With your permission, I will do so - or feel free to do it yourself if you
would prefer. Just let me know.
Regards,
Andrew.
PS Wording:
======== CUT HERE =========
(A) Add to [namespace.def] and [gram.dcl]:
namespace-definition:
*nested-namespace-definition*
named-namespace-definition
unnamed-namespace-definition
*nested-namespace-definition*:
*namespace* *nested-namespace-specifier* *::* identifier *{*
namespace-body *}*
*nested-namespace-specifier*:
identifier
*nested-namespace-specifier* *::* identifier
(B) Add new paragraph to [namespace.def]:
X. A *nested-namespace-definition* with a *nested-namespace-specifier* *N*,
*identifier* *I* and namespace-body *B* is identical (by definition)
to *namespace
N { namespace I { B } }*
======== CUT HERE =========
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > From: Andrew Tomazos
> > I've prepared a draft wording for you if you are interested:
>
> Thanks, this will surely be helpful.
>
> > It doesn't support inline namespaces as I think it would be
> > ambiguous whether it applies to the outer or inner namespace.
> > If you want to open a nested inline namespace you can just
> > use the normal longer notation.
>
> That's exactly my thought, but let's see what are the
> commenters'/committee's opinions.
>
> > If you put this proposal in the next mailing I am happy to
> > present it to EWG for you at the next meeting in Rapperswil in
> > case you are not attending and don't have someone to present it.
>
> That's great, thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> Robert
>
> --
>
> ---
> 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/.
>
--
---
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/.
--089e013c66e2d1021f04fc83c86e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Robert, =C2=A0[Cc: std-proposals]<div><br></div><div>I =
did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution Working=
Group in Rapperswil.</div><div><br></div><div>My interpretation of the vot=
es was that there was a clear and strong consensus for the basic feature, b=
ut there wasn't clear consensus for the extra features (inline namespac=
es, attributes, namespace aliases).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic fe=
ature to Core in the next mailing. =C2=A0If we leave the extra features ill=
-formed, we can always add them later.<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></=
div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">With your permission, I will do so - or feel fre=
e to do it yourself if you would prefer. =C2=A0Just let me know.</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Regards,</div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra">
Andrew.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>PS Wording:</div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><br><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CUT HERE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div><div st=
yle=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(A) Ad=
d to [namespace.def] and [gram.dcl]:</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,s=
ans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-se=
rif;font-size:13px">
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 namespace-definition:</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sa=
ns-serif;font-size:13px">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0<u>nested-namespa=
ce-definition</u></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size=
:13px">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 named-namespace-definition</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 unnamed-namespace-definition</div><div style=3D"font-family:a=
rial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,s=
ans-serif;font-size:13px">
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0<u>nested-namespace-definition</u>:</div><div style=3D"f=
ont-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=
=A0<b>namespace</b>=C2=A0<u>nested-namespace-specifier</u>=C2=A0<b>::</b>=
=C2=A0identifier=C2=A0<b>{</b>=C2=A0namespace-body=C2=A0<b>}</b></div><div =
style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0<u>nested-namespace-specifier</u>:</div><div style=3D"font-fam=
ily:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 identifier=
</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0<u>nested-namespace-specifier</u>=C2=A0<b>=
::</b>=C2=A0identifier</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font=
-size:13px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:=
13px">(B) Add new paragraph to [namespace.def]:</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div s=
tyle=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">X. A=C2=A0<i>nested-na=
mespace-definition</i>=C2=A0with a=C2=A0<i>nested-namespace-specifier</i>=
=C2=A0<b>N</b>,=C2=A0<i>identifier</i>=C2=A0<b>I</b>=C2=A0and namespace-bod=
y=C2=A0<b>B</b>=C2=A0is identical (by definition) to=C2=A0<b>namespace N { =
namespace I { B } }</b></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div s=
tyle=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D CUT HERE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</div><div><br></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Robert Kawulak <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:robert.kawulak@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">=
robert.kawulak@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">> From: Andrew Tomazos<br>
<div class=3D"">> I've prepared a draft wording for you if you are i=
nterested:<br>
<br>
</div>Thanks, this will surely be helpful.<br>
<div class=3D""><br>
> It doesn't support inline namespaces as I think it would be<br>
> ambiguous whether it applies to the outer or inner namespace.<br>
> If you want to open a nested inline namespace you can just<br>
> use the normal longer notation.<br>
<br>
</div>That's exactly my thought, but let's see what are the comment=
ers'/committee's opinions.<br>
<div class=3D""><br>
> If you put this proposal in the next mailing I am happy to<br>
> present it to EWG for you at the next meeting in Rapperswil in<br>
> case you are not attending and don't have someone to present it.<b=
r>
<br>
</div>That's great, thank you.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Robert<br>
<div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<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 <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals%2Bunsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-propo=
sals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/gro=
up/std-proposals/</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></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 <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<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 />
--089e013c66e2d1021f04fc83c86e--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:17:27 +0300
Raw View
On 23 June 2014 20:00, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert, [Cc: std-proposals]
>
> I did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution
> Working Group in Rapperswil.
>
> My interpretation of the votes was that there was a clear and strong
> consensus for the basic feature, but there wasn't clear consensus for the
> extra features (inline namespaces, attributes, namespace aliases).
>
> I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic feature to Core in the
> next mailing. If we leave the extra features ill-formed, we can always add
> them later.
I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes to Core.
--
---
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/.
.
Author: Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:40:36 +0200
Raw View
--20cf303bfe403ad59904fc8457c9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June 2014 20:00, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Robert, [Cc: std-proposals]
> >
> > I did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution
> > Working Group in Rapperswil.
> >
> > My interpretation of the votes was that there was a clear and strong
> > consensus for the basic feature, but there wasn't clear consensus for the
> > extra features (inline namespaces, attributes, namespace aliases).
> >
> > I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic feature to Core in
> the
> > next mailing. If we leave the extra features ill-formed, we can always
> add
> > them later.
>
> I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes to
> Core.
>
Ok, I thought I asked Dr Stroustrup and he said to send it on to Core, but
maybe I misremembered. We'll address it to EWG for another vote and maybe
if it goes well again we can get it down to CWG all at Urbana.
Is there something in the wording that raises an issue for you that you
might like to discuss? or is this just a matter of procedure?
--
---
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/.
--20cf303bfe403ad59904fc8457c9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Ville Voutilainen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:ville.voutilainen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ville.voutilaine=
n@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">On 23 June 2014 20:00, Andre=
w Tomazos <<a href=3D"mailto:andrewtomazos@gmail.com">andrewtomazos@gmai=
l.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi Robert, =C2=A0[Cc: std-proposals]<br>
><br>
> I did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution<=
br>
> Working Group in Rapperswil.<br>
><br>
> My interpretation of the votes was that there was a clear and strong<b=
r>
> consensus for the basic feature, but there wasn't clear consensus =
for the<br>
> extra features (inline namespaces, attributes, namespace aliases).<br>
><br>
> I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic feature to Core i=
n the<br>
> next mailing. =C2=A0If we leave the extra features ill-formed, we can =
always add<br>
> them later.<br><br>
</div>I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes t=
o Core.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"></div></div></blockquote></div><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Ok, I thought I asked Dr Stroustrup and he=
said to send it on to Core, but maybe I misremembered. =C2=A0We'll add=
ress it to EWG for another vote and maybe if it goes well again we can get =
it down to CWG all at Urbana.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Is there so=
mething in the wording that raises an issue for you that you might like to =
discuss? or is this just a matter of procedure?</div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra">
<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 <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<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 />
--20cf303bfe403ad59904fc8457c9--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:11:17 +0300
Raw View
On 23 June 2014 20:40, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes to
>> Core.
> Ok, I thought I asked Dr Stroustrup and he said to send it on to Core, but
> maybe I misremembered. We'll address it to EWG for another vote and maybe
> if it goes well again we can get it down to CWG all at Urbana.
> Is there something in the wording that raises an issue for you that you
> might like to discuss? or is this just a matter of procedure?
Just a checking phase, nothing more. The idea is that Core should not need
to verify that the wording matches the chosen design, so a brief Evolution
review of the wording should be done.
--
---
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/.
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:21:25 +0300
Raw View
On 23 June 2014 21:11, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June 2014 20:40, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes to
>>> Core.
>> Ok, I thought I asked Dr Stroustrup and he said to send it on to Core, but
>> maybe I misremembered. We'll address it to EWG for another vote and maybe
>> if it goes well again we can get it down to CWG all at Urbana.
>> Is there something in the wording that raises an issue for you that you
>> might like to discuss? or is this just a matter of procedure?
>
> Just a checking phase, nothing more. The idea is that Core should not need
> to verify that the wording matches the chosen design, so a brief Evolution
> review of the wording should be done.
Hmm, I think it would be worth noting that a revised paper should mention that
this shortcut cannot be inline, and that attributes cannot appertain
to it. The former
should be pointed out in the design even if it's deducible from the wording, and
the latter gives Core the design background in case the attribute support for
namespace happens after this proposal.
--
---
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/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:51:07 -0700
Raw View
Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> writes:
| On 23 June 2014 20:00, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
| > Hi Robert, [Cc: std-proposals]
| >
| > I did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution
| > Working Group in Rapperswil.
| >
| > My interpretation of the votes was that there was a clear and strong
| > consensus for the basic feature, but there wasn't clear consensus for the
| > extra features (inline namespaces, attributes, namespace aliases).
| >
| > I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic feature to Core in the
| > next mailing. If we leave the extra features ill-formed, we can always add
| > them later.
|
|
| I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes to Core.
Makes sense -- that is what I would have expected.
-- Gaby
--
---
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/.
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:04:30 +0300
Raw View
On 25 June 2014 11:51, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org> wrote:
> Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> writes:
>
> | On 23 June 2014 20:00, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
> | > Hi Robert, [Cc: std-proposals]
> | >
> | > I did present your Nested Namespace proposal (N4026) to the Evolution
> | > Working Group in Rapperswil.
> | >
> | > My interpretation of the votes was that there was a clear and strong
> | > consensus for the basic feature, but there wasn't clear consensus for the
> | > extra features (inline namespaces, attributes, namespace aliases).
> | >
> | > I therefore propose we send my wording for the basic feature to Core in the
> | > next mailing. If we leave the extra features ill-formed, we can always add
> | > them later.
> |
> |
> | I think the wording should be looked at by Evolution before it goes to Core.
>
> Makes sense -- that is what I would have expected.
And further to the point - what EWG reviewed was an early design proposal - when
that proposal gets revised based on the feedback, EWG should take a look at
the revised design, and briefly look at the wording, and THEN send stuff to CWG,
but not before the revised design has been reviewed.
--
---
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/.
.