Re: QT4CG meeting 136 draft agenda, 30 September 2025

> 1.6.3. Close without action
>
>      It has been proposed that the following issues be closed without
>      action. If you think discussion is necessary, please say so.
>        * Issue [16]#1965: The Generator record
>        * Issue [17]#1452: Links from the agendas/minutes to the dashboard
>          don't redirect when the PR is no longer on the dashboard
>        * Issue [18]#716: Generators in XPath
>        * Issue [19]#708: Toward a design for generators

Before making decision to close "The Generator record" issue, please, be
informed that several people have expressed strong support for the idea to
make the Generator record a standard/pre-defined record in XPath. These
include Adam Retter, Liam Quinn and Sasha Firsov. Liam Quinn and Sasha
Firsov even agreed to be considered co-authors for a future Pull Request.

As noted in my last comment on
https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/issues/1965#issuecomment-3325066157 :

" XPath has a lot to gain if the Generator record type is a
standard-predefined type.

One of the benefits is that it provides the feature of Lazy (deferred)
evaluation as a standard, available and guaranteed capability.
Another benefit is that a generator provides a uniform collection-datatype,
that guarantees correct handling of edge cases and properly raising errors
and preventing silent data loss, and that can be used to perform all
processing on this data, after initially creating all source collections
(be them sequences, arrays, maps, or ...) as generators.

If this opportunity is neglected by the QT group, this is all on their
conscience.

Do we think about the end users of XPath at all, or are we only exploring
the "easiest" ways to evolve existing vendor implementations?

One of the reasons I stopped participating in this group is because I saw
that this group is often incapable of making major and really necessary
features that would benefit the user.
When all work is already done and we have executable formal specifications,
the only "effort" from the group is to say: *Yes*. Failing to do so, speaks
a lot and doesn't need obvious comments ..."

Thanks,
Dimitre.