On 08/12/2020 13:29, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Niall Douglas via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/12/2020 22:56, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>>
>>> IBM does maintain representation in WG21 (and I thought in WG14 as
>>> well). There are also ports of Clang to EBCDIC systems now as well.
>>
>> They have robust representation on WG14. Indeed, they are the primary
>> cause for saying no to any proposed insubstantial change. This is very
>> frustrating to anyone proposing anything non-trivial, but the IBM rep is
>> a very good engineer, very technically able, and he has a strong opinion
>> that C ought to not change by much, ever.
>>
>> IBM remains keen on EBCDIC, and they defend it on WG14 zealously. I'd
>> say everybody else on WG14 would prefer if it went away, but in the end
>> if a particular implementor really wants to support it, there aren't
>> good reasons for removing it.
>
> I'm not certain if you intended for your message to come across in
> such a negative way

I really didn't intend it to be negative at all. Actually, I thought I
wrote the opposite, I was reporting how things were in a *positive* way.
Thank you for letting me know that what I thought I wrote was not what I
wrote.

> Hopefully the new study group on C and C++ compatibility can help you
> better understand these sorts of differences and how to avoid making
> proposals to WG14 which lead to results that frustrate you, but I
> don't think your post above was accurate or constructive.

I want to be absolutely clear that I meant the exact and precise
opposite of how I apparently appeared to say. So, to clarify:

- Yes it is very frustrating when your proposal gets shot down for being
mildly ambitious.

- It is a *positive* thing that ambitious proposals get *consistently*
shot down if you take the technical opinion that C ought to not change much.

- The technical opinion that C ought to not change much is one held by
what I consider very fine technical ability and talent. Great guy, I
respect him a lot, and I was trying to say so above. I don't agree with
the opinion myself, but I very much do understand the opinion, and the
technical merits behind it.

- Finally, proposals get shot down for all sorts of reason all the time.
Usually because they're bad proposals, sometimes because they don't fit
within the overall vision, occasionally due to politics. One wouldn't
last long here if one took it personally, and I hope nothing in my
original post made you think that I did.


I'd like to conclude by apologising for any offence caused. I really,
genuinely, thought I did write the opposite that you said I wrote, and I
must admit, even reading it now, I don't see what you say I said. Still,
thanks for helping me catch an unintentional slight, it *definitely* was
not meant that way.

Niall