C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [ub] [isocpp-lib-ext] Busted tooling for string_view

From: Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:26 -0500
[adding SG12]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Geoffrey Romer via Lib-Ext <
lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 1. The straw poll results recorded in the Jacksonville wiki (10-4-3-1-3
> for constructing string_view from null) are inaccurate.
> 2. The straw poll results are accurate, but do not constitute consensus.
> 3. There was consensus in the LEWG meeting room in Jacksonville, but that
> decision has somehow been superseded.
> 4. There is consensus for this change in LEWG, but not in LWG, WG21,
> and/or national bodies.

I believe the answer is 4 (1-3 are ridiculous, given that both Nathan and I
were in the room).

There was at least one person who told me ahead of time they would have
voted "no" if they could have been in the room, but because it was
extremely unlikely they could escape their room (and in fact they
couldn't), they didn't have a vote.

This proposal was not seen by SG12, even though it clearly has to do with
defining previous ub.

There was a 93 message thread on this very thing in 2016 <
http://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2016/10/3138.php>, so clearly more than
just "the people in the room reviewing every LEWG paper" have an interest
in this.

Talking with folks afterwards, I know that there are a few people who would
have voted "no" had they been in the room, but I readily admit there is a
non-zero chance that some or all of those folks might have just been
humoring me while I was ranting. :-)

Honestly, I'd rather discuss it instead of going through the dance of
objecting during whatever plenary this gets put forward and voting on it
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  +1-847-691-1404

Received on 2018-03-19 20:33:08