Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:28:25 +0200
" So what you're saying is that my argument was correct, but the way I
expressed
it (direct and with few words) led to the mis-interpretation that I was
part
of the committee and dismissive of the problem?
Ok, I will strive to be clearer in my communications in the future. "
Exactly, I always say, there are at least two ways to leave a bus if
somebody blocks the door. One way is to say to the blocking I'm sorry,
could you move so I can get out and the other way is to give him kick in
the butt. The end result will be the same but people will look at you in a
completely different way.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 19:18, Artur Czajkowski via Std-Discussion
> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > True. I believe one you've suggested with gperf is one possibility.
> > But I wasn't talking about that particular case. I was rather talking
> about the way you've expressed yourself with that arrogant and almost
> dismissive way about what std committee is and what is its role. And
> exactly that kind of attitude I met a number of times from members of the
> committee. There were times that I've heard that nobody is paid for being
> in committee so how can I expect something of quality etc. Upsetting,
> saddening... but real...
> > We could discuss it here till the cows come home who is right, what is
> right and who is wrong and why it is me...
> > For years now I'm observing what is happening to the C++ and to be
> honest, the language that I loved committee by its "wrong doings" to it,
> made the language that I'm now trying to leave behind and move towards Rust.
> > In my opinion most people who put in their "some/any sort of CV" fact
> that they are members of the std committee should say: I'm in the committee
> that is destroying C++ instead.
> > Perhaps it is a bit melo-dramatic but I used to love C++. Now some parts
> of it because of the committee are awful/ugly, some funny, some buggy and
> none of them seem to be one part of one cohesive language.
> > Shame on them.
>
> What any of this has to do with a question about a large
> initializer_list of strings taking a long time to compile
> is completely beyond me.
>
expressed
it (direct and with few words) led to the mis-interpretation that I was
part
of the committee and dismissive of the problem?
Ok, I will strive to be clearer in my communications in the future. "
Exactly, I always say, there are at least two ways to leave a bus if
somebody blocks the door. One way is to say to the blocking I'm sorry,
could you move so I can get out and the other way is to give him kick in
the butt. The end result will be the same but people will look at you in a
completely different way.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 19:18, Artur Czajkowski via Std-Discussion
> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > True. I believe one you've suggested with gperf is one possibility.
> > But I wasn't talking about that particular case. I was rather talking
> about the way you've expressed yourself with that arrogant and almost
> dismissive way about what std committee is and what is its role. And
> exactly that kind of attitude I met a number of times from members of the
> committee. There were times that I've heard that nobody is paid for being
> in committee so how can I expect something of quality etc. Upsetting,
> saddening... but real...
> > We could discuss it here till the cows come home who is right, what is
> right and who is wrong and why it is me...
> > For years now I'm observing what is happening to the C++ and to be
> honest, the language that I loved committee by its "wrong doings" to it,
> made the language that I'm now trying to leave behind and move towards Rust.
> > In my opinion most people who put in their "some/any sort of CV" fact
> that they are members of the std committee should say: I'm in the committee
> that is destroying C++ instead.
> > Perhaps it is a bit melo-dramatic but I used to love C++. Now some parts
> of it because of the committee are awful/ugly, some funny, some buggy and
> none of them seem to be one part of one cohesive language.
> > Shame on them.
>
> What any of this has to do with a question about a large
> initializer_list of strings taking a long time to compile
> is completely beyond me.
>
-- Best regards *Artur Czajkowski* https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GitAtomic.GitAtomic
Received on 2020-07-10 11:31:52