Re: [boost] [Filesystem] Proposal: make filesystem generic-programming friendly

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote:

----------------------------------------

...

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:18:11 -0500 From: bdawes@acm.org To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Filesystem] Proposal: make filesystem generic-programming friendly

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alexander Lamaison

...

The impeding standard was what caused me to release the draft now. I'd like to get this into Boost.Filesystem before the standard (which is based on it) is frozen.

It is already frozen and in fact the ISO PDTS balloting closes in 8 days. Based on early unofficial feedback, ballot resolution will mostly be limited to typo-level changes.

See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3803.pdf

That's the bad news. The good news is that the committee's plan is that ISO/IEC PDTS 18822 AKA File System Technical Specification will be the first of a series of filesystem related Technical Specifications, and the committee's Filesystem Study Group will be actively soliciting proposals for new filesystem related components. Your proposal could wind up hitting the SG just when it is actively looking for new components for the next TS.

More on this later. Thanks,

Just curious, how is this going?

One no vote, all other National Bodies voted yes. The no vote and three of the yes votes had comments attached. Total of 33 National Body comments were technical. There were also editorial comments, which the editor will fix without the committee having to do anything. The committee will devote two meetings to fixing the issues. That's called ballot resolution is ISO-speak. We resolved most of the NB comments in Issaquah this week. For the most part that involved wording tweaks to the standardese. Surprisingly, the LWG/SG-3 voted to add make relative functions. There are also a bunch of issues from Bill Plauger and STL detailing problems they ran into working on the Microsoft implementation. They caught a lot of noexcept related isssues, for example. An updated working paper and issues lists will be available in the post-meeting mailing, due in two weeks or so.

And was the proposal by Alexander ever submitted to the committee?

It sounds really interesting and useful.

No sign of it, but that may be for the better as we were totally tied up with C++14 ballot resolution, Filesystem TS ballot resolution, pulling the Library Fundamentals TS together from the individual proposals, and starting TS working papers for several other TSes. The committee is on a roll. --Beman