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?
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk