I think this mailing list is an appropriate place to discuss such
interactions between C and C++.

I agree "rant" was probably a bit too far and I hope we can be more
respectful and follow the ISO and other codes of conduct to keep our
discussion more civil.

Procedurally, as I said before, discussion here on this list is
appropriate, but actual standard changing decisions need to go through the
meetings via papers.
The suggestion to have a paper from WG21 submitted to WG14 to deal with
any issues with aspects of what was voted in the past meeting is a good
one. I can say that in the past, C++ issues and compatibility discussions
have always been seriously looked at by C (some would say they have been
given too much weight to the detriment of C users, but that is another
discussion), and in fact, almost always end up passing (at least within
the past few years).

Moving forward, civil discussion here is good, and to actually have a
change made, papers are welcome.

Regards,

Rajan Bhakta
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect
ISO C Standards Representative (Canada, USA), PL22.11 Chair
C/C++ Compiler Development
rbhakta_at_[hidden]

IBM



From: Ville Voutilainen via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]>
To: "Uecker, Martin" <Martin.Uecker_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>,
"bjarne_at_[hidden]" <bjarne_at_[hidden]>,
"liaison_at_[hidden]" <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Date: 08/12/2020 09:39 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] labels
Sent by: "Liaison" <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]>



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.

> > > 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.
_______________________________________________
Liaison mailing list
Liaison_at_[hidden]
Subscription:
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison

Link to this post:
http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2020/08/0146.php