Re: P1788: Next?
On 1788.1 being a flavor of 1788-2015, John Pryce wrote:
> I seem to remember this became an essentially technical question and that
> whether 1788.1 is a flavor or not comes down to how literals are handled,
> If it wasn't resolved, personally I would be happy if 1788.1 keeps the simpler
> spec that means it's not (currently) a flavor. When the main 1788 standard is
> revised in a few years, we can decide whether to limit literals to follow the
> 1788.1 form -- in which case 1788.1 would become a flavor!
I agree, including with the conclusion.
---Sent: 2017-02-09 14:04:31 UTC