C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [std-proposals] goto is not harmful (was: "once" keyword)

From: sasho648 <sasho648_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 19:37:24 +0300
I was about to write this message in a different form, basically accusing
the committee of unethical practices and fulfilling third party interests
for personal gain while purposely slowing down development progress - but
mid writing that I realised I don't want to be sued.

In any case even if I did write the above it would have been solely for the
expected reactions and not in any shape of form for the purpose of
diminishing this organisation's credibility. Thus I must also disclaim that
such potential message (which I also didn't write as mentioned in the first
paragraph) doesn't lay down on any actual evidence and is purely for
entertainment purposes only.

Additionally I hope that such entertainment value is appreciated by this
email group subscribers and not taken as offense or off-topic.

Anyway with that I'm out.

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:08 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 24/05/2023 18:00, sasho648 via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > Weird how that should even be concern of the committee. Just give the
> > syntax and allow implementations to decide what can they implement as
> > `constexpr` or not.
> This just calls for... gratuitous implementation divergence?
> My 2 c,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals

Received on 2023-05-24 16:37:36