C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] [isocpp-sg21] Telecon to review P2388R1 Minimum Contract Support: either Ignore or Check_and_abort

From: Caleb Sunstrum <calebs_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:35:39 -0600
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 9:02 AM Aaron Ballman via SG21 <
sg21_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > All of that said, making progress on contracts is an important and also
> difficult process, and I don’t want to have to guess which other groups
> might have concerns about our direction.
> >
> > So, if SG21’s work is of concern to SG22, please make sure that someone
> is monitoring and or attending our meetings.
> I can certainly ask SG22 members to attend SG21 meetings if they're
> interested in the topic. However, it's a pretty tall order to expect
> someone to sign up to fight this level of apathy for the SG22 mandate
> when the SG21 answer to "I want to Specify contracts in a way
> standardizable as part of the C language" is 3:1 saying it's not
> important.
> ~Aaron

I'm not sure your interpretation of the level of apathy is correct. When I
filled out that poll, I was answering about how important those things are
*to me as a developer*.

If a member of SG22 were to raise reasonable objections, I would absolutely
listen to and consider them, because I recognize that what's important to
me isn't the same set as what's important to everyone else.

However, I do think that the direction of "we've made SG22 aware of what
we're doing and have invited them to attend and provide their input" is the
fair and balanced direction.

If SG22 doesn't care enough to have people attend and provide feedback,
then why should we care enough to send people to brief SG22 and wait for
their approval before we continue?


Received on 2021-09-22 12:35:57