Re: Bounded String question

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 11/12/2015 02:27 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> We already did, at our last meeting (AI12-0175-1/01), and it was soundly 
> rejected as too complicated for the problem being solved. (As the author of 
> the proposal, it was hard to disagree; I had expected the solution to be 
> simpler than it worked out -- but the main problem is the inconsistency of 
> the existing staticness rules (lots of things that should be allowed for 
> static strings are not allowed, and fixing that makes the proposal feel 
> heavy even if it isn't really).

How about just cleaning up the existing rules on what is static? That seems
worthwhile in itself. If that's done, perhaps then expanding the things that are
pre-elaborable would be acceptably complicated.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Sons of a silly person."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
02