Doc No: SC22/WG21/N1458 J16/03-0041 Date: April 25, 2003 Project: JTC1.22.32 Reply to: Robert Klarer IBM Canada, Ltd.

Minutes of ISO WG21 Meeting, April 6, 2003

1. Opening and introductions

Sutter convened the meeting at 18:10 on April 6, 2003. There were 8 countries represented.

1.1 Welcome from host

Francis Glassborow welcomed the Working Group to Oxford and discussed meeting arrangements for the week.

1.2 Roll call of technical experts


Name Country HOD?
---- ------- ----

Steve Adamczyk USA No
Matt Austern USA No
Steve Clamage USA No
Gabriel Dos Reis France No
Francis Glassborow UK No
Lois Goldthwaite UK No
Chris Hill UK No
Seiji Hayashida Japan No
Robert Klarer Canada Yes
Ichiro Koshida Japan Yes
Jan Kristoffersen Denmark Yes
Clark Nelson USA Yes
Tana Plauger USA No
Tom Plum USA No
Georges Schumacher France Yes
Bjarne Stroustrup USA No
Herb Sutter (Convenor)
Detlef Vollmann Switzerland Yes

1.3 Select meeting chair

Sutter was selected by unanimous consent

1.4 Select meeting secretary

Klarer was selected by unanimous consent

1.5 Select language

English was selected

1.6 Adopt agenda

The agenda was adopted as written.

1.7 Select drafting committee

Steve Adamczyk, Matt Austern, and Gabriel Dos Reis were named to the drafting committee.

1.8 Approve minutes from previous meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved by unanimous consent.

1.9 Review action items from previous meeting

From previous minutes:
"Plum will respond to Matthew Deane at SC22 with our rationale for publishing a revised standard."

This item is now done.

1.10 Recognize documents

No documents were recognized.

2. Status, liaison and action item reports

2.1 Small group status reports

2.2 Liaison Reports

2.2.1 SC22 report

Sutter reported that both the TC1 Ballot and the Registration Ballot for the C++ Performance TR have been approved. Sutter also indicated that some typos were reported on the TC1 ballot. These will be corrected in the ISO document. A revised edition of the IS with TC1 changes but without change bars will be published. This will be document 14882:2003(E).

T. Plauger asked whether a Record of Response will be made available. Plum recalled that one of the concerns about making Records of Response available was that it would result in excessively large mailings. For this reason, the "Changes and Context" committee document was expected to be an SC22 document only and not a joint SC22/J16 document. However, it has recently been decided that J16 will no longer issue hardcopy mailings, so no reason remains for making this document an SC22 document only.

Action item for Sutter: check to see whether the group needs permission to make this document available to the public on the committee's website.

2.2.2 SC22/WG11 (Binding Techniques) report

[defer to Monday session]

2.2.3 SC22/WG14 (C) report

[ defer to Monday session]

Plum mentioned that he had asked for a show of hands at the WG14 meeting to see how many people attending the C meeting thought that they were C liaisons to C++. Nine people responded.

Plum reviewed WG14 work on a planned Technical Report to specify extended character types in C. The TR will specify a 16-bit character type named char16_t and a 32-bit character type named char32_t. Literals of type char16_t will be denoted by the prefix 'u', and char32_t literals will be denoted by the prefix 'U'. This proposal will introduce a new header named <uchar.h>, and this header will declare a number of new functions, including mbrtoc16, mbrtoc32, c16rtomb, and c32rtomb.

Plum indicated that work had progressed on the Technical Report concerning the use of C in embedded systems.

Plum also reported that WG14 had discussed the option of handling new work in TRs, rather than planning specifically for new revisions of the standard, and that there was some sense among the group that no new C standard would be necessary in the foreseeable future.

T. Plauger reported that the WG14 meeting had been well attended, and that the C committee has accepted invitations to convene in Sydney, Australia in Spring of 2004 and in Redmond WA in Fall of 2004.

2.2.4 SC22/WG15 (POSIX) report

[ defer to Monday session]

2.2.5 SC22/WG20 (Internationalization) report

[ defer to Monday session]

3. New business

Defect Report procedures

Austern expressed the need to increase the rate at which Library Defect Reports are processed, because the LWG is devoting much of its time to the Library TR. Austern intends to achieve this by dividing the LWG into multiple subgroups so that issues may be discussed in parallel.

Status of RR and TC

Future meeting schedules

Performance TR status and planning

The Registration Ballot for the Performance TR has succeeded.

There is a new draft of the document that supercedes the one that appears in the pre-meeting mailing. Goldthwaite reported that she would like to forward this document to SC22 for approval as a TR.

Sutter requested that diffs demonstrating changes between current draft and the draft that appeared in the pre-meeting mailing be made available to committee members.

Library TR status and planning

Austern reported that he expects that several new proposals will be accepted for inclusion in the TR at this meeting, and that proposals that have not yet been submitted to the committee are unlikely to be approved (at any time) for inclusion in this TR. Austern indicated that he expects that the substantive technical work on the TR will be done one year from now, and that about 6 proposals in total will be accepted.

Sutter observed that at this meeting, the commitee may vote things into C++0x, and that the committee needs a document to serve as a basis for this work. Sutter suggested that this base document should be 14882:2003(E).

Goldthwaite recommended the establishment of a group for the discussion of Generic Programming and Metaprogramming in C++. This group would allow Library Working Group members to work better with Core Working Group members to find the best means of expressing the specification and implementation of generic libraries and metaprogramming libraries in C++ (with core language changes, if necessary).

Much discussion followed, and was summarized by Plum: this issue is to be decided by the Evolution Working Group.

Stroustrup and Nelson both observed that the Evolution Working Group was established to permit the sort of cooperation that Goldthwaite desired.

4. Review and approve resolutions and issues

5. Closing process

5.1 Select chair for next meeting

Sutter was selected to chair the next meeting by unanimous consent.

5.2 Establish next agenda

The agenda for the next meeting will be the same as for this meeting, except that item 5.3 will be removed (since this subject is already addressed under "New Business." The will be no item titled "Press release planning."

This agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

5.3 Future meetings

5.4 Future mailings

Will be covered tomorrow

5.5 Assign document numbers


5.6 Review action items

Sutter is to inquire about the possibility of making a Record of Response available to the public (see above).

5.7 Any other business


5.8 Thanks to host

The host was thanked. Applause.

5.9 Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent.

Meeting adjourned at 19:25.