<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, 12:29 PM Titus Winters <<a href="mailto:titus@google.com" target="_blank">titus@google.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Since the SG15 group has already seen and discussed that, I'm not sure how much value there is in talking about it with the same people.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It has the usual value that discussing proposals in F2F or tele-con official SG meetings have.. hearing from a slightly different audience, feedback on the *actual revision* instead of a draft, but most importantly voting on poll questions.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> It'll have to be seen by a standarization group (LEWGI, for instance) in order to make progress toward actually standarizing. </div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Right. But it would be irresponsible to have them look at it if SG15 doesn't think this is a direction we should take. After all, isn't this the point of the SGs: to study, research, and filter proposals?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> So, probably mention it but I assume we won't spend a lot of SG15 time on it.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Okay I can do that. But that seems unfair to me. I'm expending a lot of resources just to be able to attend the one day SG15 is meeting because SG15 doesn't meet "out-of-band". And attending to present the paper I spent a week writing instead of the one I worked on for more than a year is discouraging. How do we expect to "In 10 years, the committee should be able to..." if we are meeting so infrequently? Are you prepared to chair regular non-f2f meetings (as SG14 does for example) to compensate? Should I be considering alternate avenues to move things along?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>To help put things in context I had prepared these 7 questions (after I submitted the R0 version) to get direction from the committee:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1. For option short and long names, should we use existing practice?</div><div dir="auto">2. For option short and long names, should we abandon existing practice and prefer more intuitive names?</div><div dir="auto">3. Should we add a constexpr overload that compiles in-place?</div><div dir="auto">4. Should we add an extern "C" function that is callable externally?</div><div dir="auto">5. Is the International Standard a viable method to standardize core compiler options?</div><div dir="auto">6. Are standing documents a viable method to standardize core compiler options?</div><div dir="auto">7. Are standing documents a viable method to standardize experimental and vendor compiler options?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>