<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi Jim,</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Agreed.</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><br><br><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Jim Thomas <jaswthomas@sbcglobal.net></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">Cfp <cfp-interest@oakapple.net></font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">02/19/2019 10:47 AM</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Cfp-interest
1242] Fw: WANT macros</font><br><hr noshade><br><br><br><br><br><font size=3>On Jan 29, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Rajan Bhakta <</font><a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com"><font size=3 color=blue><u>rbhakta@us.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size=3>>
wrote:</font><br><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hello,</font><font size=3><br></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>Some feedback re our position to remove the WANT macros.<br>I intend to push back on the header version macros saying it needs a proposal.<br>Anything else the group wants me to bring forward?</font><br><br><font size=3>I think we should give our opinion on renaming math functions,
if it comes up.</font><br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>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.<br>The current text is:</font><font size=3 face="Times-Roman"><br> - Working closely with 754 (strong liaison, one member is chair
and one is the editor)<br> - Working on creating updated TS's for the ones voted in (parts
2 and 3) for inclusion into the working C2X draft</font><br><br><font size=3>Only parts 1 and 2 are voted in so far. Right? Part 1
is integrated (by Jens) into a C2X working draft. The integration draft
for part 2 will be submitted to Jens. Part 3 as annex will be submitted
to WG14. A new proposal for part 4a will be submitted WG14. This should
all be done before the next WG14 mailing, assuming CFP approves.</font><br><br><font size=3>- Jim Thomas</font><br><br><font size=3 face="Times-Roman"> - Will continue binding IEEE-754
2019 to the TS's that remain after C2X</font><font size=3><br></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>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: </font><a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>rbhakta@us.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">,
Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM</font><font size=1 color=#800080 face="sans-serif"><br>----- Forwarded by Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM on 01/29/2019 08:32 AM -----</font><font size=3><br></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>From: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Jens
Gustedt <</font><a href="mailto:jens.gustedt@inria.fr"><font size=1 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>jens.gustedt@inria.fr</u></font></a><font size=1 face="sans-serif">></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>To: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Rajan
Bhakta" <</font><a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com"><font size=1 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>rbhakta@us.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size=1 face="sans-serif">></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>Cc: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">David
Keaton <</font><a href="mailto:dmk@dmk.com"><font size=1 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>dmk@dmk.com</u></font></a><font size=1 face="sans-serif">>,
Larry Jones <</font><a href="mailto:lawrence.jones@siemens.com"><font size=1 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>lawrence.jones@siemens.com</u></font></a><font size=1 face="sans-serif">></font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>Date: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/29/2019
02:28 AM</font><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif"><br>Subject: </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re:
WANT macros</font><font size=3><br></font><hr noshade><font size=3><br><br></font><tt><font size=2><br>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 <</font></tt><a href="mailto:dmk@dmk.com"><tt><font size=2 color=blue><u>dmk@dmk.com</u></font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><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 color=blue><u>http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt</u></font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>::</font></tt><font size=3><br><br><br><attvi5yg.dat>_______________________________________________<br>Cfp-interest mailing list</font><font size=3 color=blue><u><br></u></font><a href="mailto:Cfp-interest@oakapple.net"><font size=3 color=blue><u>Cfp-interest@oakapple.net</u></font></a><font size=3><br></font><a href="http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest"><font size=3>http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest</font></a><br><br><br><BR>