<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hello,</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Some feedback re our position to remove
the WANT macros.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I intend to push back on the header
version macros saying it needs a proposal.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Anything else the group wants me to
bring forward?</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I do intend on writing our status report
after our next meeting which I hope we can review via this list before
I submit it.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The current text is:</font><br><font size=3 face="Times-Roman"> - Working closely with 754 (strong
liaison, one member is chair and one is the editor)</font><br><font size=3 face="Times-Roman"> - Working on creating updated
TS's for the ones voted in (parts 2 and 3) for inclusion into the working
C2X draft</font><br><font size=3 face="Times-Roman"> - Will continue binding IEEE-754
2019 to the TS's that remain after C2X</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br><br>Rajan Bhakta<br>z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>ISO C Standards Representative for Canada, PL22.11 Chair (USA)<br>C Compiler Development<br>Contact: rbhakta@us.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM</font><br><font size=1 color=#800080 face="sans-serif">----- Forwarded by Rajan
Bhakta/Houston/IBM on 01/29/2019 08:32 AM -----</font><br><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr></font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Rajan Bhakta"
<rbhakta@us.ibm.com></font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">David Keaton <dmk@dmk.com>,
Larry Jones <lawrence.jones@siemens.com></font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/29/2019 02:28 AM</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: WANT macros</font><br><hr noshade><br><br><br><tt><font size=2>Hello,<br><br>On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:49:32 -0600, Rajan Bhakta wrote:<br><br>> Also, just so it's not a surprise, the CFP group will be stating our
<br>> preference of removing the WANT macros as we believe they are needed<br>> for TS's but not for actual standards. I intend to write up our<br>> position in the CFP group status report in time for the London<br>> mailing.<br><br>That is good to hear, so we mainly agree, here.<br><br>The only thing that I'd like to note to that position is that it would<br>make more sense to make the distinction between mandatory and optional<br>parts of the standard.<br><br>So my personal position would be<br><br> - no WANT macros in the numbered clauses<br><br> - WANT macros in Annex F and perhaps Annex G (don't remember if we<br> were adding interfaces, here)<br><br>This is to avoid exposure of symbols of optional parts of the standard<br>to code that doesn't expect them. This would keep us in line with the<br>current policy in Annex K.<br><br>What I also would like to add is version macros for the headers. This<br>is because implementations and users will otherwise have a difficult<br>time getting things straight during a transition to C2x. Nowadays,<br>compiler and library often come from different parties and a global<br>version macro for the standard version is not appropriate to match<br>that situation. POSIX does this and has good experience with that, I<br>think.<br><br>So I would like to have __STDC_MATH_VERSION__ and similar, for all<br>library clauses where we add interfaces.<br><br>> From: David Keaton <dmk@dmk.com><br>> ....<br><br>> One thing you could do is to merge the TSes the
way you hope it <br>> works, and let the committee see how that looks. However, that
might<br>> be a lot of work, so you don't have to do that.<br><br>The first is now merged as had been proposed (modulo bugs,<br>probably). Removing these parts is not a big deal, editorially, but I<br>wouldn't want to change that before London, unless you are telling me<br>that removing WANT is what everybody voted for implicitly.<br><br>What we could do is to add a warning in the preamble to early adopters<br>that this WANT thing is something that is likely to change in the<br>process.<br><br><br><br><br>Thanks<br>Jens<br><br><br>-- <br>:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::<br>:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::<br>:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::<br>:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::<br>:: </font></tt><a href="http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt"><tt><font size=2>http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>::<br></font></tt><br><BR>