[boost] Re: [utility] question on prior(x,n)

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-24 04:19:30

Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 2/23/2004, Daniel Frey wrote:
> 
>  >The reason to call it a DR is, that it can be handled faster and easier
>  >than a real extension. :) I just don't know if this is acceptable. What
>  >to the standard guys around here say? Worth a try?
> 
> No, it isn't a DR.
> 
> OTOH, the LWG is now accepting issues for C++0x which propose extensions 
> and changes which aren't DR's.
> 
> There isn't any formal definition of what is small enough to be treated 
> as an issue rather than requiring a full-fledged formal proposal paper. 
> If it can be expressed clearly in a page or less, including the proposed 
> wording change to the standard, then I'd be willing to submit it as an 
> issue. Without explicit standardese proposed wording, the chance of 
> acceptance is much reduced. The committee has no staff sitting around 
> waiting to write standardese for bright ideas.

Thanks for explaining it. I'll try to prepare a small document and send 
it to you directly.

One last question for the group: Is the name std::regress OK or are 
there any objections / better ideas?

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de