(j3.2006) Proposals 13 and 17 in 13-244r1

[Malcolm Cohen]

>> Proposing to allow absent optional arguments as i/o specifiers has nothing to 
>> do
>> with proposal 13.  It is a new proposal.
>
>Actually, it's at least nine years old (04-180), but new for 201.

Right, but the point is that it is a separate proposal.

Interestingly, I note that 04-180 got 5 Dislike vs. 3 Like, and No Action.

>Because this leads to the same sort of combinatorial explosion that
>motivated part 2 of proposal 13 in the first place,

Specifiers are relatively few in number.  More like a combinatorial campfire 
than an explosion.

>My feet have far more fingers than Malcolm's.

Ok, so few people are encountering even a mild form of difficulty.

>The alternative, which I consider to be rather ugly, is to extend part 2
>of proposal 13 to compute whether a specifier is considered to appear.

There is no connection with proposal 13.  Please do not attempt to tack it on in 
any way, shape, or form.  Unless your intent is to kill proposal 13.

>"Present" seems easier and prettier.

It is far from as trivial as changing a couple of words in the standard.  Nor is 
it trivial to implement.  And not much bang for the buck.

Clearly this is not, and should not be, on the agenda at this time.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.