P1701 Inline Namespaces: Fragility Bites #470
This was seen in today's EWG telecon.
POLL: The problem exposed in 2.1 PR90291 (which is the same as 2.3 Modules) is one that we wish to address with a language change.
Result: No consensus for a change.
POLL: The problem exposed in 2.2 Unnamed Namespaces is one that we wish to address with a clarification of the Standard’s intent.
POLL: Direct Core to clarify the Standard’s intent in 2.2 Unnamed Namespaces by adopting P1701r2’s 5.2 Option B. Resolve this as a Core issue, apply as a DR.
Process: Nathan to talk to Mike, will open a Core issue with the proposed resolution. No need for EWG electronic polling, but Nathan should email EWG once the Core issue is open.