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 16:51:20 -0500
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Geoffrey Romer <gromer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I agree. However, I'd rather discuss it in a way that focuses on the
> technical merits of the proposal (rather than the meta-level question of
> what form and degree of consensus the proposal has), and in a way that
> avoids calling the integrity of other committee members into question.

That would be nice, but I have to make my plenary objection as strong as my
technical objection, and IMO degree of consensus is on-topic for the latter.

The wiki notes indicate there was also a (short) Friday discussion on this
paper. Is this true (I wasn't in the room), or is it just a cut/paste
error? The final poll implies it was a separate discussion (far fewer
votes), and I would have made it my business to be in the room for it had I
known the discussion would continue.
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  +1-847-691-1404

Received on 2018-03-19 22:52:02