C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] labels

From: Uecker, Martin <Martin.Uecker_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:32:16 +0000
Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2020, 17:09 +0300 schrieb Ville Voutilainen:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:55, Uecker, Martin
> <Martin.Uecker_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > cost/benefit ratio of that change in C is all that great.
> >
> > WG14, which is much more conservative with respect
> > to changes in the language than WG21, obviously
> > thought differently.
> >
> > In my opinion, this decision simply needs to be
> > respected by participants of the discussion.
> >
> > Otherwise, I think there is not much
> > basis for a collaboration.
> I wonder what the definition of "decision simply needs to be
> respected" is, and what room for collaboration
> it leaves. Perhaps you could elaborate on that, so that I don't go
> into hypotheticals?

Well, if WG14, as the ISO committee in charge for C, which
is full of C experts (including implementors, users, tool
makers, etc.), after careful discussion just made
a decision to make a change to the C language (which
is rare enough), it is completely inappropriate - in my
humble opinion - if the first reaction from the C++ side
is to rant about how unnecessary and unjustified this
change was.

> > > I don't see this change as anything really sinister or having wide
> > > impact, modulo implementation churn;
> > > it seems to be a miniature usability improvement. At the end of it, it becomes
> > > a question of whether it's worth doing when everybody can just add the
> > > null statements where required, and it's
> > > not hard to find why and how to do that.
> >
> > It would be worth for the sake of compatibility.
> It seems like we're talking about fixing an incompatibility that has
> been recently introduced.

...while fixing a much bigger incompatibility.


Received on 2020-08-12 09:35:44