On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 4:39 AM Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023, 09:35 trtaab trtaab, <tvfvof_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Oh yeah. Their work LOL.
>>
>> Working on 7 years for nothing but a completely utter historical mistake like std::format, charconv instead of finding a solution to fix iostream? Std::addressof a C++11 feature only made freestanding after C++23?
>>
>> Exceptions being a completely joke even before I was born?
>>
>>
>> What are the work WG21 is doing?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I have very right to attack and insult politicians in WG21.
>
>
> You've been acting like this for years and unsurprisingly it's got you nowhere. Why don't you just write your own language and compiler?
>
> Or get therapy to help with your inability to behave reasonably.

The sad part about all this is that the OP treats the committee as if
it is inherently hostile to freestanding, while in reality, the
committee has been very receptive towards expanding required
freestanding functionality.

Indeed, the primary impediment of freestanding stuff like this is
having the ability to get fine-grained requirements. That is,
freestanding was defined by headers in pre-C++23 in an all-or-nothing
kind of way; either everything in a header was a freestanding
requirement or nothing was. C++20 didn't require constexpr allocator
support to freestanding implementations because it *couldn't*, as this
would require everything else in the allocator header to be
freestanding requirements too. Ben Craig put forth a number of
proposals that were all based on adding fine-grained freestanding
requirements.

And to my knowledge, nobody reacted with any pushback on the idea
itself. Or if they did, it certainly didn't derail any of them.
Basically, all of the hostility is coming from one direction.