Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:11:55 -0500
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 7:28 PM Miguel Ojeda via SG12 <sg12_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm strongly opposed to adding such facilities without
> > changing the abstract machine description in the core
> > language section. Some hand-waving in the library
> > section is not enough.
>
> Please describe precisely why the "hand-waving" would not be enough.
>
The burden is on you to either defend why hand-waving is enough or to
propose changes to the abstract machine.
> In
> particular, note that subjective claims about "purity", "beauty", etc.
> of the abstract machine should not be part of the discussion.
>
Please don't bring straw man arguments into this. In particular, note that
neither Jens nor anyone besides you mentioned subjective claims like
"purity", "beauty", etc.
> If someone has the will,
> knowledge, time and resources to craft wording changes to the abstract
> machine that are concise/simple enough to warrant the complexity
> increase, I am sure they will be very welcome and agreed upon by
> everyone.
>
Unless the answer is "we don't", I don't know how to resolve that when the
EWG chair specifically asked: "how do we fit this into the abstract
machine?" And if we don't, well, you can guess what Jen's vote will be,
and my vote will likely be the same.
Then none of the projects out there are "reliably delivering", either.
> Yet it is what they all do and what should be standardized. If you
> think those projects are in the wrong, then please take it up with
> them, not with WG21.
>
If they should so choose to bring it up for standardization in C++, we will.
> Also please note that, as the proposal explains, *not* having this in
> the standard has already caused actual bugs in the wild. If we have
> had the solution already in the standard, those would have been
> prevented.
>
*Every* proposal has a use case. That doesn't mean it belongs in the
standard.
As it stands, I would be strongly opposed to even naming it secure_clear,
because it isn't.
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm strongly opposed to adding such facilities without
> > changing the abstract machine description in the core
> > language section. Some hand-waving in the library
> > section is not enough.
>
> Please describe precisely why the "hand-waving" would not be enough.
>
The burden is on you to either defend why hand-waving is enough or to
propose changes to the abstract machine.
> In
> particular, note that subjective claims about "purity", "beauty", etc.
> of the abstract machine should not be part of the discussion.
>
Please don't bring straw man arguments into this. In particular, note that
neither Jens nor anyone besides you mentioned subjective claims like
"purity", "beauty", etc.
> If someone has the will,
> knowledge, time and resources to craft wording changes to the abstract
> machine that are concise/simple enough to warrant the complexity
> increase, I am sure they will be very welcome and agreed upon by
> everyone.
>
Unless the answer is "we don't", I don't know how to resolve that when the
EWG chair specifically asked: "how do we fit this into the abstract
machine?" And if we don't, well, you can guess what Jen's vote will be,
and my vote will likely be the same.
Then none of the projects out there are "reliably delivering", either.
> Yet it is what they all do and what should be standardized. If you
> think those projects are in the wrong, then please take it up with
> them, not with WG21.
>
If they should so choose to bring it up for standardization in C++, we will.
> Also please note that, as the proposal explains, *not* having this in
> the standard has already caused actual bugs in the wild. If we have
> had the solution already in the standard, those would have been
> prevented.
>
*Every* proposal has a use case. That doesn't mean it belongs in the
standard.
As it stands, I would be strongly opposed to even naming it secure_clear,
because it isn't.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden] <nevin_at_[hidden]>> +1-847-691-1404
Received on 2020-04-24 21:15:34