On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:21 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/27/22 11:55, Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> Hello Phil,
>
> can you share the .pdf documentation of C++ superset on this list (without having to download and install the complete framework)?
>
> Nice of you, if you want to contribute something useful and workable.
>
> Thanks for your constructive comments. Here is the documentation; it works in multithreaded mode as well:
>
> https://fornux.com/files/pdf/Superset_Manual.pdf
>
>
> (In the following I share my personal impression, how it will go. But I do not make the rules.)
>
>
>
> If you want to propose an extension to the Core Language, the patent landscape has to be in a way that the improved language can be still compiled or processed by open source _and_ commercial compilers like Microsoft Visual C++ and run by their runtime libraries. Without those commercial companies or their customers having to get a license to the standardized core language.
>
> You have to assume that during the standardization process your proposals will be changed and parts removed, others added and others would work or be written differently.
>
> You wrote: "waiving the patented Fornux C++ Superset to integrate it into free open source projects" <- what about commercial projects? There won`t be a C++ language for commercial projects and one for open source projects, I am sure about that.
>
> What I would like to integrate into the C++ standards first and foremost is a framework to allow implicit addition of class members, parameters, and scope instances, just like what the C++ Superset source-to-source compiler is doing right now.
>
>
> Once the framework is in place then we can integrate the root_ptr memory manager, or other tools such as a compile-time backtrace, standard profilers, ... I am also looking to make root_ptr free for open source projects but we'll see for commercial projects as it might be similar to the Docker containers approach but it's not confirmed yet.

I'm having a difficult time following this conversation. At the top of
this thread, you talked about your "Fornux C++ Superset" thing, and
you linked specifically to a page that talked very specifically about
memory management things. You linked to discussions about Rust
adoption. You've said many times in this thread how you want to solve
memory management issues.

And now you're saying that this proposal is only about "a framework to
allow implicit addition of class members, parameters, and scope
instances".

Could you please nail down EXACTLY what you want to propose *before*
saying something about it? It's very difficult to engage with your
proposal when you are constantly dancing around saying what you
actually want done.

Give us a 3 paragraph summary of what exactly you want changed in the
C++ standard. No links, no off-ML resources. Just state plainly the
exact thing you want changed in the C++ standard. I'm not asking for
standardese; I'm asking for the specific thing you want the language
to do.

Until we have that, there is nothing that we can really engage with.