Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 10:35:33 -0500
On 2/25/26 10:24, David Brown wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Hopefully this will clear things up a little for you.
>
> What the government of one particular country wants, is not the same
> thing as the rules it requires. And even if it introduces specific
> new requirements for software used by that government, those do not
> normally affect software for other purposes - and certainly not all
> the software development that is done in all the other countries of
> the world. While the USA is obviously a big player in the software
> world (for many reasons), it is far from being /everything/ - the C++
> standards are /international/ standards and are not controlled by any
> one country.
True but every other countries tend to copy the requirements of the USA
over time, for their lack of initiatives.
>
> If you have ideas for additions or changes to the C++ standards that
> could make it harder for developers to make mistakes with memory
> management, then you can write a proposal for such changes for the
> proposal mailing list. (It's fine to have discussions early in the
> process - you don't have to start by writing a full formal proposal
> document.) A proposal covers changes to the C++ language or standard
> library. External tools - regardless of price or licensing - are not
> relevant to C++ standards discussions. But if you have an idea for,
> say, a new type of smart pointer that combines the advantages of
> shared pointers and garbage collection with deterministic destructors
> and efficient usage, then that might well be a candidate for adding to
> the C++ standard. Finding ways to improve various aspects of memory
> and resource access safety is definitely a hot topic in C++ language
> and library development, and real contributions would be appreciated.
Ok thank you.
>
> This particular mailing list, however, is for discussions about the
> C++ standard as it is today. It is for discussions about flaws or
> unclear wording, or for difficult questions (the kind that can't be
> answered with a google search or a stack overflow post).
>
> There are no lists at "isocpp.org" - or any other ISO group or site -
> where it is appropriate to post adverts and spam. That includes
> adverts in email signatures.
My signature is Nvidia-based logo so it is very indirectly related.
But thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate.
Regards,
-Phil
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2026 15:50, Phil Bouchard via Std-Discussion wrote:
>>
>> On 2/25/26 00:35, Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 8:33 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Discussion
>>> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> I apologize but people forget the US government disallows memory
>>>> unsafe programming languages:
>>>>
>>>> https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jun/23/2003742198/-1/-1/0/CSI_MEMORY_SAFE_LANGUAGES_REDUCING_VULNERABILITIES_IN_MODERN_SOFTWARE_DEVELOPMENT.PDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the importance of the problem I was hoping for a constructive
>>>> discussion as it is free anyways for OSS projects.
>>> The validity of your description of that paper aside (nothing in that
>>> paper seems to "disallow" anything; it's just a look at the current
>>> state of affairs), that doesn't justify your post. This ML is for
>>> discussing the C++ standard as it exists. If you want to propose
>>> changing it, there's a different ML for that.
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/08/the_us_government_wants_developers/
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Hopefully this will clear things up a little for you.
>
> What the government of one particular country wants, is not the same
> thing as the rules it requires. And even if it introduces specific
> new requirements for software used by that government, those do not
> normally affect software for other purposes - and certainly not all
> the software development that is done in all the other countries of
> the world. While the USA is obviously a big player in the software
> world (for many reasons), it is far from being /everything/ - the C++
> standards are /international/ standards and are not controlled by any
> one country.
True but every other countries tend to copy the requirements of the USA
over time, for their lack of initiatives.
>
> If you have ideas for additions or changes to the C++ standards that
> could make it harder for developers to make mistakes with memory
> management, then you can write a proposal for such changes for the
> proposal mailing list. (It's fine to have discussions early in the
> process - you don't have to start by writing a full formal proposal
> document.) A proposal covers changes to the C++ language or standard
> library. External tools - regardless of price or licensing - are not
> relevant to C++ standards discussions. But if you have an idea for,
> say, a new type of smart pointer that combines the advantages of
> shared pointers and garbage collection with deterministic destructors
> and efficient usage, then that might well be a candidate for adding to
> the C++ standard. Finding ways to improve various aspects of memory
> and resource access safety is definitely a hot topic in C++ language
> and library development, and real contributions would be appreciated.
Ok thank you.
>
> This particular mailing list, however, is for discussions about the
> C++ standard as it is today. It is for discussions about flaws or
> unclear wording, or for difficult questions (the kind that can't be
> answered with a google search or a stack overflow post).
>
> There are no lists at "isocpp.org" - or any other ISO group or site -
> where it is appropriate to post adverts and spam. That includes
> adverts in email signatures.
My signature is Nvidia-based logo so it is very indirectly related.
But thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate.
Regards,
-Phil
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2026 15:50, Phil Bouchard via Std-Discussion wrote:
>>
>> On 2/25/26 00:35, Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 8:33 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Discussion
>>> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> I apologize but people forget the US government disallows memory
>>>> unsafe programming languages:
>>>>
>>>> https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jun/23/2003742198/-1/-1/0/CSI_MEMORY_SAFE_LANGUAGES_REDUCING_VULNERABILITIES_IN_MODERN_SOFTWARE_DEVELOPMENT.PDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the importance of the problem I was hoping for a constructive
>>>> discussion as it is free anyways for OSS projects.
>>> The validity of your description of that paper aside (nothing in that
>>> paper seems to "disallow" anything; it's just a look at the current
>>> state of affairs), that doesn't justify your post. This ML is for
>>> discussing the C++ standard as it exists. If you want to propose
>>> changing it, there's a different ML for that.
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/08/the_us_government_wants_developers/
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
-- Email Signature Fornux Logo <https://www.fornux.com/> *Phil Bouchard* LinkedIn Icon <https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-bouchard-5723a910/> Founder & CEO T: (819) 328-4743 E: phil_at_[hidden]| www.fornux.com <http://www.fornux.com> 720 Oliver Ave, San Diego, CA, 92109 The Best Predictable C++ Memory Manager <https://static.fornux.com/c-superset/> Le message ci-dessus, ainsi que les documents l'accompagnant, sont destinés uniquement aux personnes identifiées et peuvent contenir des informations privilégiées, confidentielles ou ne pouvant être divulguées. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez le détruire. This communication (and/or the attachments) is intended for named recipients only and may contain privileged or confidential information which is not to be disclosed. If you received this communication by mistake please destroy all copies.
Received on 2026-02-25 15:35:36