<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 29, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Rajan Bhakta <<a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com" class="">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">Hello,</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">Some feedback re our position to remove
the WANT macros.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">I intend to push back on the header
version macros saying it needs a proposal.</font><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">Anything else the group wants me to
bring forward?</font></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I think we should give our opinion on renaming math functions, if it comes up.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">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 class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">The current text is:</font><br class=""><font size="3" face="Times-Roman" class=""> - Working closely with 754 (strong
liaison, one member is chair and one is the editor)</font><br class=""><font size="3" face="Times-Roman" class=""> - Working on creating updated
TS's for the ones voted in (parts 2 and 3) for inclusion into the working
C2X draft</font><br class=""></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- Jim Thomas</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><font size="3" face="Times-Roman" class=""> - Will continue binding IEEE-754
2019 to the TS's that remain after C2X</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" face="sans-serif" class="">Regards,<br class=""><br class="">Rajan Bhakta<br class="">z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br class="">ISO C Standards Representative for Canada, PL22.11 Chair (USA)<br class="">C Compiler Development<br class="">Contact: <a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com" class="">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</a>, Rajan Bhakta/Houston/IBM</font><br class=""><font size="1" color="#800080" face="sans-serif" class="">----- Forwarded by Rajan
Bhakta/Houston/IBM on 01/29/2019 08:32 AM -----</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif" class="">From:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif" class="">Jens Gustedt <<a href="mailto:jens.gustedt@inria.fr" class="">jens.gustedt@inria.fr</a>></font><br class=""><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif" class="">To:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif" class="">"Rajan Bhakta"
<<a href="mailto:rbhakta@us.ibm.com" class="">rbhakta@us.ibm.com</a>></font><br class=""><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif" class="">Cc:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif" class="">David Keaton <<a href="mailto:dmk@dmk.com" class="">dmk@dmk.com</a>>,
Larry Jones <<a href="mailto:lawrence.jones@siemens.com" class="">lawrence.jones@siemens.com</a>></font><br class=""><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif" class="">Date:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif" class="">01/29/2019 02:28 AM</font><br class=""><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif" class="">Subject:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif" class="">Re: WANT macros</font><br class=""><hr noshade="" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><tt class=""><font size="2" class="">Hello,<br class=""><br class="">On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:49:32 -0600, Rajan Bhakta wrote:<br class=""><br class="">> Also, just so it's not a surprise, the CFP group will be stating our
<br class="">> preference of removing the WANT macros as we believe they are needed<br class="">> for TS's but not for actual standards. I intend to write up our<br class="">> position in the CFP group status report in time for the London<br class="">> mailing.<br class=""><br class="">That is good to hear, so we mainly agree, here.<br class=""><br class="">The only thing that I'd like to note to that position is that it would<br class="">make more sense to make the distinction between mandatory and optional<br class="">parts of the standard.<br class=""><br class="">So my personal position would be<br class=""><br class=""> - no WANT macros in the numbered clauses<br class=""><br class=""> - WANT macros in Annex F and perhaps Annex G (don't remember if we<br class=""> were adding interfaces, here)<br class=""><br class="">This is to avoid exposure of symbols of optional parts of the standard<br class="">to code that doesn't expect them. This would keep us in line with the<br class="">current policy in Annex K.<br class=""><br class="">What I also would like to add is version macros for the headers. This<br class="">is because implementations and users will otherwise have a difficult<br class="">time getting things straight during a transition to C2x. Nowadays,<br class="">compiler and library often come from different parties and a global<br class="">version macro for the standard version is not appropriate to match<br class="">that situation. POSIX does this and has good experience with that, I<br class="">think.<br class=""><br class="">So I would like to have __STDC_MATH_VERSION__ and similar, for all<br class="">library clauses where we add interfaces.<br class=""><br class="">> From: David Keaton <<a href="mailto:dmk@dmk.com" class="">dmk@dmk.com</a>><br class="">> ....<br class=""><br class="">> One thing you could do is to merge the TSes the
way you hope it <br class="">> works, and let the committee see how that looks. However, that
might<br class="">> be a lot of work, so you don't have to do that.<br class=""><br class="">The first is now merged as had been proposed (modulo bugs,<br class="">probably). Removing these parts is not a big deal, editorially, but I<br class="">wouldn't want to change that before London, unless you are telling me<br class="">that removing WANT is what everybody voted for implicitly.<br class=""><br class="">What we could do is to add a warning in the preamble to early adopters<br class="">that this WANT thing is something that is likely to change in the<br class="">process.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Thanks<br class="">Jens<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::<br class="">:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::<br class="">:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::<br class="">:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::<br class="">:: </font></tt><a href="http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt" class=""><tt class=""><font size="2" class="">http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt</font></tt></a><tt class=""><font size="2" class="">::<br class=""></font></tt><br class=""><br class=""><span id="cid:91C4550C-9E08-4543-99CE-B1E68392A600@attlocal.net"><attvi5yg.dat></span>_______________________________________________<br class="">Cfp-interest mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Cfp-interest@oakapple.net" class="">Cfp-interest@oakapple.net</a><br class="">http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>