JTC1/SC22
N2185
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:29:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "william c. rinehuls" <rinehuls@access.digex.net>
To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk
Subject: Document SC22 N2185
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI)
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2185
June 1996
TITLE: Minutes of SC22/WG21 (C++) Meeting on
March 10-15, 1996 in Santa Cruz, California,
USA
SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
WORK ITEM: N/A
STATUS: N/A
CROSS REFERENCE: N/A
DOCUMENT TYPE: Minutes of WG21 Meeting
ACTION: TO SC22 Member Bodies for information.
Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA 22153 USA
Tel: +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973
email: rinehuls@access.digex.net
____________________________________________________________________________
Document Number: WG21/N0879
X3J16/96-0061
Date: 12 March 1996
Project: Programming Language C++
Reply to: Dan Saks
dsaks@wittenberg.edu
Minutes
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21 Meeting No. 15
10 - 15 March 1996
Dream Inn Resort
175 West Cliff Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
1 Opening and introductions
Harbison convened the meeting at 18:05 (PST) on Sunday, 10 March 1996.
1.1 Welcome from host
1.2 Roll call of technical experts
The attendance list appears as Appendix A.
1.3 Select meeting chair
Harbison offered to chair the meeting, and no one objected.
1.4 Select meeting secretary
Harbison affirmed that Saks would be the secretary for this meeting.
1.5 Select language
Harbison suggested that WG21 conduct this meeting in English, and no one
objected.
1.6 Adopt agenda
Harbison presented the proposed agenda SD-0 (revised 2 March 1996), and
recommended adding the following items:
3.4 Copyright Issues
3.5 Meetings and Mailings
WG21 accepted the agenda with these changes.
1.7 Select drafting committee
As usual, Saks will coordinate the drafting committee. Corfield,
Hartinger, Rumsby and Unruh offered to participate.
1.8 Approve minutes from previous meeting
Saks submitted N0816 = 95-0216 for approval as the minutes of the
previous meeting. WG21 accepted the minutes without change.
1.9 Review action items from previous meeting
None.
1.10 Recognize documents
None.
2 Status, liaison and action item reports
2.1 Small group status reports
None.
2.2 Liaison Reports
2.2.1 SC22/WG11 (Binding Techniques) report
No report.
2.2.2 SC22/WG14 (C) report
Deferred to the joint meeting with X3J16.
2.2.3 SC22/WG15 (POSIX) report
No report.
2.2.4 SC22/WG20 (Internationalization) report
No report.
3 New Business
3.1 Review changes to working paper
Deferred to the joint session with X3J16.
3.2 CD Comment Resolution Status
Harbison said he must prepare a written "disposition of comments" for
SC22, describing WG21's response to each NB (national body) comment from
the CD ballot. He said he expected each NB to convey to him this week
whether WG21 has adequately addressed its comments.
3.3 Comment Resolution Procedure
Harbison asked if anyone had concerns about how their NB comments would
be addressed.
Koenig said he understood we could still make substantive changes to the
draft to correct problems during ballot. Harbison said we could, but we
should try to avoid it.
Koenig said there was a proposal before WG21+X3J16 to abolish separate
compilation of templates. If that proposal were to pass, the ensuing
editing work would delay the standard at least one and maybe two
meetings. However, since that proposal did not address any NB require-
ments, we might not need to address it. Hartinger said the template
compilation model was one of Germany's concerns.
Koenig said that after the Tokyo meeting, Corfield said he'd look at the
WP (working paper) to identify the outstanding problems in the template
specification. Corfield later reported via email that he found no
problems -- that the template clause was clear enough. Koenig also said
some people have claimed that templates can't be implemented efficiently
(at translation-time, not run-time). Koenig said he didn't think any-
thing would be gained by rewriting WP to allow more efficient implemen-
tations. He thought the current specification allowed implementations
that were efficient-enough.
Stroustrup said separate compilation of templates is important and has
been part of the template specification since the beginning. We should
not remove it.
Corfield said that there are at least two and perhaps three national
bodies that would vote against the CD if separate compilation of
templates were to disappear. He explained that the problem is really
one of name lookup. All the problems with separate compilation of
templates are also problems with compiling a single source file using
multiple namespaces. Unruh replied that there is at least one problem
with the separation model that is not a problem with the inclusion
model. He presented that problem to the Core III WG in Tokyo.
Harbison asked if anyone had concerns about the library.
Koenig said that, as it stands, it does not allow a "set of pointers".
Stroustrup said he has one paper on a problem in the library that needs
to be addressed, but otherwise, he likes the library.
Unruh said that, just because there are no major issues in the library,
that doesn't mean the library is good enough. Also, at present, there's
no compiler that can compile the entire library. There are parts of the
library specification that are syntactically incorrect. Also, there's a
problem with the interaction of constness and templates. He didn't
think we could iron out all the problems until compilers can actually
compile the library and people can use it.
Hartinger said that name binding during template compilation is still a
concern for the German delegation.
Koshida said Japan is concerned about wide characters in strings and
streams. He said they are generally satisfied, but a few minor problems
remain. He said Japan is not concerned about the template issues, but
they do have concerns about the proposal for extended characters in
identifiers.
Clamage said he was concerned about the sheer number of issues on the
Library issues lists. He didn't see how we could close them all this
meeting.
Harbison said it appears that there are three issues of particular
concern to the NBs:
-- Extended Characters
-- The State of the Library
-- Template Compilation Model
We need to make sure there's a procedure in place to address each of
these at this meeting.
Harbison asked the NBs where they stand on each issue:
-- Extended Characters
Plum said he discussed the extended character proposal with Kumagai, and
he (Plum) believes there's no real problem; small changes will make
everyone happy. He said we still need to work on it this week, but we
should be able to resolve the issues this week. The work will be done
in the C Compatibility WG.
Plum later suggested we will have fewer proposals for extensions and
changes if we recommend a CD ballot rather than slip the schedule.
-- The State of the Library
Kiefer said he had no strong opinion about the state of the library, but
he did notice that the issues list doubled in size between the last
meeting and this one.
Plauger agreed that the sheer number of details is the enemy of getting
the library to converge. That's his biggest concern. No one issue is
that great. Rumsby concurred. Corfield also concurred, adding that it
was unlikely we would get through all the small issues this week.
Koenig noted that the question was really whether we were likely to need
a third CD. Corfield said the UK would rather not vote on advancing the
second CD until this summer's meeting in Stockholm.
Harbison said he heard concerns, but no one said drastic action is
needed.
Stroustrup agreed with Plum that going to another CD ballot will cut
down on the proposals for changes.
For the record, Harbison raised the issue of splitting the library
standard from the language standard, and observed that no one supported
it.
-- Template Compilation Model
Hartinger said he thought that the current specification for separate
compilation of templates is a problem for both implementors and users.
For users, the problem is error reporting; for implementors, it's
implementability.
Corfield said the template compilation model is no longer a problem for
the UK.
Hartinger explained that, if the separate-compilation model can be
specified to satisfy their needs, then it need not be eliminated. Unruh
said that, given choice between removing separate compilation of
templates and leaving the WP as is, Germany would vote to remove.
Bruck said Sweden's position is that if the model were changed, they
would vote "no" on the CD.
Harbison observed that this might be a "blocking" issue. He added that
we don't know what the US position on this will be.
Lajoie said the Core III WG (chaired by Gibbons) would discuss this
issue. Unruh preferred to address this in a technical session on Monday
evening, rather than in a WG session. WG21 discussed whether to address
this issue in Core III or in an evening technical session. Lenkov
preferred the technical session; Bruck preferred Core III. Lenkov
suggested spending no more than an hour on the issue in Core III, and if
no progress is made, continuing in the technical session.
Hartinger said something is wrong if a minority feels they must operate
outside the committee to have their needs addressed. Plauger explained
that, if the majority feels that nothing they do will satisfy the
minority, then the majority must document the steps they've taken to
satisfy the minority.
Harbison agreed with Lenkov, that Core III should discuss template
compilation models on Monday afternoon, limiting discussion to about an
hour. If more discussion is needed, it should continue in the evening
technical session. Bruck said he thought this was the wrong way to
handle this.
3.4 Copyright Status
Harbison said we have the precedents we need to publish the CD elec-
tronically to the public during the CD ballot. It's not clear if we
have such permission with a draft that is not a CD, or any other
committee document.
3.5 Meetings and Mailings
Harbison announced that Digital offered to host the March '97 meeting in
Nashua, NH, USA.
4 Closing process
4.1 Select chair for next meeting
Harbison offered to prepare the agenda for the next meeting and act as
chair.
4.2 Establish next agenda
The committee's agenda will be essentially the same as this one.
4.3 Future meetings
See item 3.5.
4.4 Future mailings
No discussion.
4.5 Assign document number(s)
None.
4.6 Review action items
None.
4.7 Any other business
None.
4.8 Thanks to host
WG21 thanked Borland for hosting the meeting.
4.9 Adjournment
WG21 recessed at 20:15 on Sunday and reconvened in joint session with X3J16.
See the corresponding WG21+X3J16 meeting minutes (N0880 = 96-0062).
Appendix A - Attendance
Name Affiliation; (*) = Head of Delegation
Lajoie, Josee Canada (*)
Harbison, Sam Convener
Stroustrup, Bjarne Courtesy
Hartinger, Roland Germany (*)
Kiefer, Konrad Germany
Unruh, Erwin Germany
Koshida, Ichiro Japan (*)
Bruck, Dag Sweden (*)
Corfield, Sean UK
Glassborow, Francis UK
Rumsby, Steve UK (*)
Southworth, Mark UK
Clamage, Steve USA
Koenig, Andrew USA / Project Editor
Lenkov, Dmitry USA
Plum, Thomas USA (*)
Saks, Dan USA / Secretary
Plauger, P. J. WG14 Convener
_____________________________end of N2185_______________________________