I’ve got a few library-related standards projects I’m somewhat involved in, and I’m not sure if they are appropriate for the Beman project. “No” is a fine answer for each of these, but I can see some value in each.
- Test harness for a freestanding library (GitHub - ben-craig/kernel_test_harness: kernel_test_harness). I currently point this at the MSSTL, make some changes, and then run the libc++ tests as a way of verifying whether some facility is freestanding of not. It’s not something that a typical user is interested in, but it can be of use to the standards community (with some polishing at least).
- Borrow-checking discussions and library additions (Sean Baxter: Safe C++). If this gets going, there will be a need to author library additions, but those library additions will rely on compiler features that aren’t present in released compilers. There could also be a lot of value in having public paper discourse on this.
- Policy papers (example: “P3085R2
noexcept
policy for SD-9 (throws nothing)”). Maybe the Beman discourse could be an additional place for expert commentary and review?
As stated before, “no” is a reasonable answer here. I’ve heard it said that it’s not a real project until you know what’s out of scope. But maybe some of these are in scope and could help seed the system.