[iostream.forward.overview] Notezilla #494

Activity

1. jwakely

   self-assigned this

   on May 6, 2015
2. tkoeppe commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   tkoeppe

   on Dec 14, 2016

   Contributor

   More actions

   Could you clarify which note you have in mind? Is it all of [iostream.forward.overview]? @jensmaurer, does the issue description need to be updated?
3. jwakely commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   jwakely

   on Dec 14, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Ah yes, there's a new stable name thanks to #1231

   Yes, the note in question is the one that now forms the entirety of [iostream.forward.overview] - title updated.
4. jwakely commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   jwakely

   on Dec 14, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   The problem is that 27.3.2 is nothing but a huge note, so the entire subclause is non-normative.
5. jwakely

   changed the title [-][iostream.forward] Notezilla[/-] [+][iostream.forward.overview] Notezilla[/+] on Dec 14, 2016
6. jensmaurer commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   jensmaurer

   on Dec 14, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   Right, but what's the problem? In other places, we have the intro text as "normative" text without differentiation. Here, we have it in a nice note. We could split the note in two to split off p9, which is a different topic than the intro in p1-p8. Other than killing the note entirely (at least p1-p8), I have no idea where to go here.
7. jwakely commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   jwakely

   on Dec 14, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   I agree that p9 definitely belongs in a note. Arguably the rest could be normative text, even though it doesn't say anything of substance. It would be consistent with other library clauses to have that introductory text as normative (non-note) wording. Would making non-normative wording normative be editorial though? Strictly speaking, probably not.
   I don't know how strongly @mclow feels about it, but I opened this issue in response to LWG's bewilderment at finding such a big note.
8. sigfpe commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   sigfpe

   on Dec 14, 2016 via email

   More actions

   Agreed, not a good idea to kill the note. Making the rest a non-normative change is a change to the standards, so would required WG21 vote.

   …

   On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jens Maurer ***@***.***> wrote: Right, but what's the problem? In other places, we have the intro text as "normative" text without differentiation. Here, we have it in a nice note. We could split the note in two to split off p9, which is a different topic than the intro in p1-p8. Other than killing the note entirely (at least p1-p8), I have no idea where to go here. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#494 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABRUvQL2wPvJnocBXORvbUs9AKDn8LEfks5rIDlngaJpZM4ERV6B> .
9. jensmaurer commented on Dec 14, 2016

   

   jensmaurer

   on Dec 14, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   @jwakely: As long as the effect of the standard's words doesn't change, it's editorial fair game, as far as I understand. So, we could editorially turn the first part into normative text (as long as it's semantically correct).
10. jensmaurer

    added a commit that references this issue on Dec 14, 2016

    [iostream.forward.overview] Promote introductory

    ...

    This issue will close once commit a1c0d94 is merged into the 'master' branch.

    a1c0d94
11. jensmaurer

    self-assigned this

    on Dec 14, 2016
12. zygoloid

    closed this as completedin #1244on Dec 14, 2016
13. zygoloid

    added a commit that references this issue on Dec 14, 2016

    [iostream.forward.overview] Promote introductory

    ...

    This issue will close once commit c39761a is merged into the 'main' branch.

    c39761a