From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Sep 1 21:35:57 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 1F412358789; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:35:57 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp-out-3.tiscali.co.uk (smtp-out-3.tiscali.co.uk [62.24.135.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59A43566B9 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2019 21:35:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([212.139.64.177]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id 4VdhiASVkMZHE4VdhiNcuu; Sun, 01 Sep 2019 20:35:53 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [212.139.64.177] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [J3] (SC22WG5.6138) Draft WG5 minutes To: WG5 References: <36bbf069-2d03-3a2a-64b8-1cea9dd07632@stfc.ac.uk> <20190901135008.E8D5235859B@www.open-std.org> <1567362427.19458.62.camel@van.snyder> From: John Reid Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 20:35:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1567362427.19458.62.camel@van.snyder> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfI00Ef1fGZLW5S7e+icU1LJzXc1xGKyeYhFGVYtHmEz4/vUx3YZYHZM7tIWFQFYZMq1eQX070Ghtt4p23+4UDmotgcjNNvOt9pKAqacdrolNDjVhwHQI quEItVtohwMUWBbfXCP1t0QV+ZEz+kZmTsKOmM9okq4fBg+Ndtbp/WtQQBTX2tiYO/pw3vVnZP7fCaiTft/gXF2Ua02y1J3AiJY= Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Dear Van, Nathan, and everyone else, Would it be acceptable to remove this sentence altogether? We would then have "WG5 reviewed PL22.3 paper J3/19-206r1 which expressed the opinion of the PL22.3 DATA subgroup regarding some of the US feature requests. US15, VIRTUOUS procedures, was endorsed unanimously. US24, Generic Programming, occupied most of the time. The general sense of the attendees was that generic programming was important but was too big a feature to include for this revision. See Thursday's discussion for more on this." Cheers, John. Van Snyder wrote: >> >> Added "(see N1679 and N1690)" to support the statement that "intelligent >> macros" and "parameterized modules", had been rejected by WG5 before. > > I don't think it's accurate to say that WG5 "rejected" intelligent > macros and parameterized modules. It's more accurate to say that "other > features were more important to develop at the time." > Nathan Sircombe wrote: > Hummm ok, I still find it a bit of a stretch to get all the way to 'will not be considered again'. Both intelligent macros and parameterised modules may have been killed of previously, never-the-less both were considered, with recent papers, as this meeting. > As I said, that doesn't align with the Data subgroup discussions, or the subgroup's report to plenary (19-206r1.txt), admittedly just for 'info': > > 'Continue working on Parameterised Modules with a view to inclusion in a later standard, hopefully F202y. This should include some work by /DATA subgroup at future meetings, as time permits.'