Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 22:26:03 +0300
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 22:19, Gennaro Prota via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
Implementers don't agree with that, though.
> 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.
By all means continue not to accept it, that has no effect, like it
had no effect before when implementers applied defect fixes
retroactively to existing conformance modes.
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
Implementers don't agree with that, though.
> 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.
By all means continue not to accept it, that has no effect, like it
had no effect before when implementers applied defect fixes
retroactively to existing conformance modes.
Received on 2021-06-09 14:26:16