[J3] [EXTERNAL] Private enumerators
malcolm at nag-j.co.jp
Sun Oct 27 21:44:44 EDT 2019
> Can you please explain why you strongly disagree with this claim?
There are two parts to that claim: that extensible enumeration types make no sense, and that private enumerators make no sense. As it happens I disagree with both, but you ask only about the second part.
> his argument is convincing
I did not find it so.
> I would like to learn what the arguments are for private enumerators.
And I don’t want to get bogged down in technical arguments right after the meeting.
IMO the version of enumeration types that the meeting decided on is completely unacceptable, and grossly violates our charge from WG5. Others obviously have different opinions. But it is so bad (again IMO), that I would certainly not agree to the inclusion of the current form in the standard.
But I do NOT want to get down into the nitty gritty of tricky technical arguments now! We are not about to revisit any of the (IMO very suboptimal) decisions or otherwise, that is for the next meeting. Where I would want to have time to fully prepare my arguments, time that I do not have now. Hashing/rehashing/rearguing stuff from the meeting over the email list now is, IMNSHO, mostly a waste of time, as those arguments will need to be made again, and made more clearly, at the next meeting.
Seriously, now is not the time to do this. And moreover, I have no time available to do this beyond indicating where some of my disagreements lie.
And now I’m out of time even for writing emails.
..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the J3