Second, the brevity is intentional. The feedback I have gotten is that my papers are too long. Okay so I have made them shorter. But now they are too short! Readers complain that P4172 should be merged into P4003.
I made P4286 short on purpose. It does one thing, and it does it in very few words.
Oh, brevity is fine. I appreciate it. My feedback was not about brevity per se. It was about the missing context. There is some corelation, of course.
When I read it, the paper makes sense to me, given the citations as context. What would you change?
I guess I am expecting any paper to present a theorem. This paper presents a lemma. It is difficult for me to absorb pure infrmation without the supporting "why this is worth knowing" piece. Maybe this is the core of my feedback.
The purpose of the paper is to enter information into WG21's historical record. It is institutional memory.
This information goes into the "rationale" direction that I am after.
This is indicated by the "Intent: inform" metadata field.
And is this explained in another quoted paper that I have missed?
Actually, you do know what is communicated. You said it yourself in your review: "Section "The Framing" makes a claim..." This was correct. You didn't read the cited papers, and I'm not sure how that can be fixed.
In my defense, I can say that no links in the paper, except for P0113R0, work. There is also something unfair here. The paper is short but it references long papers, and a lot of papers. It is a gross long read if one wants to understand the point. I honestly think that this paper should provide even if this is repetition what is the "work framing" nd what is "continuation framing". You didn't even leave the hint which quoted paper will provide the definitions of these terms as you see them. Regards, &rzej;