Re: [sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2

[Douglas Gregor <doug gregor gmail com>]

[Sorry I missed this message before]

On Jul 27, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Carl Nygard wrote:
> I took a look at the doc.  The "Existing Practice" section seems like
> the doc I generated.  Did you want it split up for each library 
> section,
> or should I prepare to add C# delegates and tr1::function to the
> existing comparison?

We should summarize the doc you generated for the "Existing Practice" 
section, then include a link to your comparison for readers interested 
in a more detailed comparison. "Existing Practice" mainly needs to show 
that what we're proposing has been done before and is interesting to 
people.

> Also, do you have any links to other proposal docs of this type, so I
> can get a feel for the writing style and information content?  I'm
> assuming this will be plain html, without fancy css formatting?

Simpler is better. Most committee members print a stack of 
interesting-looking proposals before they board the plane, so our 
medium really isn't the Web.

Here's one successful, well-written example of a proposal (that was for 
TR1):

	http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1443.html

	Doug