[std-interval] C++ committee feedback

[Sylvain Pion]

Dear all,

I just raised the issue in front of the Library Working Group
of the ISO C++ committee, with the help of Steve.

The feedback is positive and encouraging.  A straw poll has been
taken, on whether we should continue the effort :
Strongly in favor = 4
Weakly   in favor = 5
Weakly   against  = 0
Strongly against  = 0

The question was also raised whether we should target C++0x or TR2,
the preference is for TR2 (10 votes against 1).

[
   TR2 is a non-normative document which serves as explicit exposure of
   the intent of the committee for the next standard.
   TRs are usually also implemented by compiler vendors and serve to make
   sure users are really happy with the specification before the final
   blessing.
   C++0x is the code-name for the next standard.
]


The goal is now to reach a consensus here and have a revision of the
proposal for the next meeting, beginning of october 2006.


We also discussed 2 issues briefly:
- pass-by-value versus pass-by-ref has already been debated by the
   committee for std::complex.  Seems like the debate was as hot as
   it is for intervals.  That's an issue for the committee.
- there are still concerns on the exact list of functions that we
   will propose, we need to make sure we have the good set (sufficiently
   useful, specified with enough details such as the width of intervals,
   and taking into account the difficulty of implementation).


Steve, please correct me if I did not get something correctly or if you
want to add something.

-- 
Sylvain