Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2020, 17:39 +0300 schrieb Ville Voutilainen:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:32, Uecker, Martin
> <Martin.Uecker_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Well, calling skepticism about the necessity and justification of the
> change a rant suggests that we are fairly far from collaboration.
> In case such skepticism on this mailing
> list is considered inappropriate, I can certainly write papers
> addressing WG14 or/and file NB comments on the drafts of the C standard.

Papers would certainly be appreciated. NB comments, should
we go down to this level?

> > > > 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.
>
> That fix is orthogonal to the introduced incompabitility, as far as I can see.

Not really, I think. We would need an additional constraint
to forbid labels at the end of compound block.

Best,
Martin