I said previously that I thought we would be ready to revise the SD-6 on isocpp.org before the Urbana meeting, and I still think that -- the text is all but ready now. But in thinking about the process of publishing the revision, I had a new thought.
I think it would be a good idea to have the practice of publishing a WG21 N-document with the text we want SD-6 to have, and then basically to copy that document to isocpp.org to become the new SD-6. (That would be like an extremely primitive form of version control.) It might (or might not) also be a good idea to announce at a meeting that we have a revision ready to publish, to give people a chance to comment. That certainly has the advantage of transparency; the interesting question is whether the added delay would be worth it. In this particular instance, that would postpone the update by just about three months. Any comments? -- Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee) Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing) [email protected] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language extensions) _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
