C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Weird tweet about C++20

From: Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:10:18 +0200
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 5:50 PM Brian Bi via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Can someone provide a link to the document that contains the revisions that the committee is recommending to implementation vendors?

I still think that yours is a natural and legitimate question, and that
there should be such a document.

However, to clarify the situation a bit: Anthony Williams told me what
happened (see (a)) and gave a hint as to why the committee didn't
"bother" with such a document (see (b)).

(a) the committee changed some of the C++20 facilities in an
incompatible way, and recommended that implementors which haven't
shipped a C++20 implementation yet go straight for the C++23 version

(b) implementors always ship something that doesn't match any published
standard anyway, either because they make errors and because they
somehow "cherry pick" defect reports and apply them retroactively, more
or less as they see fit.

I don't find this situation normal, and consider it a bit of a wild
west. And I think it is exacerbated by the fact that there are way too
many defects in the standard (which should raise a bell on the process,
as it would in software development).

Anyway, this is the status quo, and I don't think that a "random person
from the Internet" would convince the committee or even the implementers
(which are about the same thing?) to work differently.

I'll only add that (a) and (b) are my rephrasing of Anthony's words, so
I apologize if I didn't report his thoughts accurately. And that, of
course, other committee members might have a different view on the issue
(I've often found that, if you ask 10 committee members about something,
you'll get 11 different answers).

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

Received on 2021-06-10 04:10:58