C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] labels

From: Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:37:38 +0100
On 12/08/2020 16:04, Ville Voutilainen via Liaison wrote:

>>>> 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.

*Some* members of WG21 were negative (I was positive, if you remember).
But most of the negativity I think mainly came on the grounds of value
added for the WG21 committee time perceived as needed.

For the record, I didn't and don't get that line of thinking. WG21 is a
net taker from WG14. As a general rule, WG14 decides what is best for C,
and WG21, as a rule, takes those changes to C as a given into C++. In
theory therefore, very little WG21 committee time is needed: "Does WG21
yay or nay WG14's changeset to C?". Thumbs up, thumbs down, done.

Now, some members of WG21 may not like that power relationship. There is
a very easy solution for them: go join WG14, attend their meetings, vote
on their proposals. I did so, and they were very welcoming. There are at
least four people there on both committees. For the record, there is a
great deal of warmth and positivity from WG14 towards WG21. But you NEED
to follow their processes, just as we expect others to follow ours.
Resorting to torpedoing stuff at NB, or threatening the same, well I
find that disrespectful of the process.

> You tell me. If your expectation is that various commenters here will
> just adopt a draft C change because WG14
> decided to make it, and the expectation is that we can't challenge
> that decision, then we have other
> avenues of discussion at our disposal.

If WG21 wants to pick a fight with WG14, please let it be over something
which really really matters. Not labels at end of compound statements,
which almost everybody here has agreed is so inconsequential it's barely
worth discussing, let alone fighting about.

I'd also point out that WG14 did everything right here. They took a
decision which affects C++ core language, they relayed it here to
liaison for WG21's information, WG21 ought to have replied "this doesn't
break anything in C++, so we're happy" and that's that.


Received on 2020-08-12 11:41:05