Re: P1788.1/M002.01
P1788
On 23 Nov 2015, at 16:15, Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was not quite sure what to vote at first, but Frederic and Oliver have
> been rather convincing. In other words, we should either keep 1788.1
> minimal or we should add some more useful functions first.
I voted Yes, and I still land on that side, just. Oliver (I think) argued that if P1788.1 is a flavor of the full standard, that makes it *less* attractive in his eyes. For me, it makes it *more* so. However, I respect Ned's views that these are functions that are rarely used. I guess it is a matter of taste between "minimal useful" and "minimal subject to being a flavor".
> Implementation simplicity feels like a weak reason for requiring a given
> function.
I agree, especially as usable code for the job has been suggested to us.
John