C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: std::span

From: Tony V E <tvaneerd_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:04:50 -0400
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:33 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:24, Tony V E <tvaneerd_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> > We make style decisions daily, whether we admit it or not. ‎Every API
> decision is a style decision.
> >>
> >> That's a poor excuse for making style decisions that we are not as a
> >> group all that well-versed to make.
> >
> >
> > If LEWG is not equipped to make these decisions, then we have a bigger
> problem.
> I have been a consistent and staunch supporter of "tools as opposed to
> dogma" as far as the committee's output is concerned,
> and I've seen little reason to change my preference/guidance there.
> The committee has a strikingly biased representation
> of programming communities, and there's nothing new in that.

If someone wrote a paper for span::at, and explained away all the "excuses"
for not having it (ie header dependencies, etc), I might vote for it.
Consistency is a strong argument for any API decision.

Or maybe it was discussed and voted already and best not to rehash?

Be seeing you,

Received on 2020-04-19 12:08:02