Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 08:36:46 +0100
it is important to put the results of those discussions in a paper's history trail. this will help not re-iterating the same thing. I learned it the hard way and still manage to mess it up.
Regards
Peter
Sent from Peter Sommerlad's iPad
+41 79 432 23 32
> On 26 Feb 2021, at 05:02, Miguel Ojeda via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:52 PM Jens Maurer via Liaison
> <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> This functionality is equivalent to memset_s, so the proposal should
>> discuss why it doesn't simply make memset_s a non-optional part of C,
>> instead of introducing a new name.
>
> This was already discussed in WG14 and it was voted to go with the new
> name and new interface.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2021/02/0367.php
Regards
Peter
Sent from Peter Sommerlad's iPad
+41 79 432 23 32
> On 26 Feb 2021, at 05:02, Miguel Ojeda via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:52 PM Jens Maurer via Liaison
> <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> This functionality is equivalent to memset_s, so the proposal should
>> discuss why it doesn't simply make memset_s a non-optional part of C,
>> instead of introducing a new name.
>
> This was already discussed in WG14 and it was voted to go with the new
> name and new interface.
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2021/02/0367.php
Received on 2021-02-26 01:36:54