Re: [boost] [Filesystem] Proposal: make filesystem generic-programming friendly

Subject: Re: [boost] [Filesystem] Proposal: make filesystem generic-programming friendly
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-14 16:03:05

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Ahmed Charles <acharles_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:18:11 -0500
> > From: bdawes_at_[hidden]
> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Subject: Re: [boost] [Filesystem] Proposal: make filesystem
> generic-programming friendly
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alexander Lamaison <awl03_at_[hidden]
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The impeding standard was what caused me to release the draft now. I'd
> >> like
> >> to get this into Boost.Filesystem before the standard (which is based on
> >> it)
> >> is frozen.
> >>
> >
> > It is already frozen and in fact the ISO PDTS balloting closes in 8 days.
> > Based on early unofficial feedback, ballot resolution will mostly be
> > limited to typo-level changes.
> >
> > See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3803.pdf
> >
> > That's the bad news. The good news is that the committee's plan is that
> > ISO/IEC PDTS 18822 AKA File System Technical Specification will be the
> > first of a series of filesystem related Technical Specifications, and the
> > committee's Filesystem Study Group will be actively soliciting proposals
> > for new filesystem related components. Your proposal could wind up
> hitting
> > the SG just when it is actively looking for new components for the next
> TS.
> >
> > More on this later. Thanks,
>
>
> Just curious, how is this going?

One no vote, all other National Bodies voted yes. The no vote and three of
the yes votes had comments attached. Total of 33 National Body comments
were technical. There were also editorial comments, which the editor will
fix without the committee having to do anything. The committee will devote
two meetings to fixing the issues. That's called ballot resolution is
ISO-speak. We resolved most of the NB comments in Issaquah this week. For
the most part that involved wording tweaks to the standardese.
Surprisingly, the LWG/SG-3 voted to add make relative functions. There are
also a bunch of issues from Bill Plauger and STL detailing problems they
ran into working on the Microsoft implementation. They caught a lot of
noexcept related isssues, for example. An updated working paper and issues
lists will be available in the post-meeting mailing, due in two weeks or so.

> And was the proposal by Alexander ever submitted to the committee?
>
> It sounds really interesting and useful.
>

No sign of it, but that may be for the better as we were totally tied up
with C++14 ballot resolution, Filesystem TS ballot resolution, pulling the
Library Fundamentals TS together from the individual proposals, and
starting TS working papers for several other TSes. The committee is on a
roll.

--Beman