C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG16] [ WG14 ] Mixed Wide String Literals

From: Aaron Ballman <aaron_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:45:35 -0500
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:24 AM Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

Thank you for clarifying, Niall, I appreciate it! Sorry for the


> Niall

Received on 2020-12-08 09:46:21