Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:30:14 -0500
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:19 PM Михаил Найденов via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> One last revision. I have decided "not to bother", but after the last meeting PM is now "conservative C++29" target, which was added as a point in the motivation.
> This is I think the realistic-to-optimistic target, mainly because there are 2 completely different proposals in flight, both of which doing too much for an initial release (in my opinion obviously).
> We have to define some scope and get something finally.
You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence for it. Why do you
think scope is the problem here? Why do you think your proposal would
be adopted faster?
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> One last revision. I have decided "not to bother", but after the last meeting PM is now "conservative C++29" target, which was added as a point in the motivation.
> This is I think the realistic-to-optimistic target, mainly because there are 2 completely different proposals in flight, both of which doing too much for an initial release (in my opinion obviously).
> We have to define some scope and get something finally.
You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence for it. Why do you
think scope is the problem here? Why do you think your proposal would
be adopted faster?
Received on 2023-02-23 17:31:07