On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 21:08 Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion <
std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:31 PM Gennaro Prota via Std-Discussion
> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 18:18 Ville Voutilainen <
> ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 19:11, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Oh. My. God. That the committee has serious process problems was
> already clear, but this is really too much.
> >>
> >> Too much for whom? You? Why does that matter? The implementation
> >> vendors have no problem with any of this.
> >
> >
> > The depressing part is that you don't see the problem with it, and don't
> know of better ways to handle the issue. Get a course on version control.
> Sorry, I won't reply any further, because this is just ridiculous. And
> since I already accused someone else, it will end up with me appearing as a
> troll rather than you as incompetent.
>
> Or you could just say what the problem is:
>
> C++ *users* need to know what a particular version of the language is
> just as much as C++ implementers. But the current way defect fixes are
> handled makes that difficult, *especially* for fixes that materially
> affect what is and is not legal code.
>

Of course. And this is as easy to handle as tagging the C++20 version and
making a branch from there. Which is also easier and safer (i.e. less
error-prone) and less exhausting for implementers.

But do we need saying this? If we do, then this people don't belong in this
profession, let alone being in a position which allows shaping one of the
most used languages in the world. Software plays important parts in our
lives, and this is unacceptable.

-- 
--
.:: Gennaro Prota ::.
.:: https://about.me/gennaro ::.
>