Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:33:57 +0200
On 13/07/2024 15:51, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> Are you actually serious about me writing a complete standard library?
>> You want me to embark on a multi-year project, just to provide an
>> example for a paper?
>
> Kind of, yes.
>
> You're making an extraordinary claim in your proposal and making an
> extraordinary requirement of standard library developers. You need to provide
> extraordinary proof.
What? What is extraordinary about my claim? No, scratch that, what do
you even think I'm claiming? How is adding FOUR SIMPLE CLASSES an
extraordinary requirement?
I want the default for classes to be unstable. Nobody has to do
anything, anything at all, to make that happen, it's just a default. The
entire standard library stays as it is, unchanged, identical, the same,
no changes. Then we go and add... FOUR CLASSES. Why do you want me to
write a bloody standard library just to demonstrate that you can add
FOUR CLASSES to it? Did you make that same COMPLETELY UNHINGED demand of
the people that wanted to add std::flatmap? Because that got added, and
I assure you it is way more code than what I'm proposing.
> Right now, any Standard Library implementor who is reading this argument is
> probably going to agree with me and not you, and therefore their votes in the
> Standard process would be to reject your proposal. I want to help you come up
> with a good proposal that has a chance of being accepted. I don't think it
> will happen, but just in case I am wrong, I want you to have the best proposal
> possible to support your claim.
If you really want to help, you can start by READING THE PROPOSAL, and
suggesting improvements to the text. That would be a far greater help
than just endlessly repeating demands for information that is already in
the proposal anyway.
You can find the proposal here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1mL1J0rXJlRnLYrcquzLVqE3jPd_IC6uQYnMIE68vA/edit
If you believe that there is no ABI issue, there is no point in
discussing: you don't believe there is an issue, and from your
perspective EVERYTHING I say is wasted effort. There is no need for you
to engage in that case.
If you DO believe there is an issue (and you've held both positions in
your various emails so I don't know which it is), we can discuss my
proposed solution. Or, if you think you have a better idea, tell us
about it.
Hans Guijt
>> Are you actually serious about me writing a complete standard library?
>> You want me to embark on a multi-year project, just to provide an
>> example for a paper?
>
> Kind of, yes.
>
> You're making an extraordinary claim in your proposal and making an
> extraordinary requirement of standard library developers. You need to provide
> extraordinary proof.
What? What is extraordinary about my claim? No, scratch that, what do
you even think I'm claiming? How is adding FOUR SIMPLE CLASSES an
extraordinary requirement?
I want the default for classes to be unstable. Nobody has to do
anything, anything at all, to make that happen, it's just a default. The
entire standard library stays as it is, unchanged, identical, the same,
no changes. Then we go and add... FOUR CLASSES. Why do you want me to
write a bloody standard library just to demonstrate that you can add
FOUR CLASSES to it? Did you make that same COMPLETELY UNHINGED demand of
the people that wanted to add std::flatmap? Because that got added, and
I assure you it is way more code than what I'm proposing.
> Right now, any Standard Library implementor who is reading this argument is
> probably going to agree with me and not you, and therefore their votes in the
> Standard process would be to reject your proposal. I want to help you come up
> with a good proposal that has a chance of being accepted. I don't think it
> will happen, but just in case I am wrong, I want you to have the best proposal
> possible to support your claim.
If you really want to help, you can start by READING THE PROPOSAL, and
suggesting improvements to the text. That would be a far greater help
than just endlessly repeating demands for information that is already in
the proposal anyway.
You can find the proposal here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1mL1J0rXJlRnLYrcquzLVqE3jPd_IC6uQYnMIE68vA/edit
If you believe that there is no ABI issue, there is no point in
discussing: you don't believe there is an issue, and from your
perspective EVERYTHING I say is wasted effort. There is no need for you
to engage in that case.
If you DO believe there is an issue (and you've held both positions in
your various emails so I don't know which it is), we can discuss my
proposed solution. Or, if you think you have a better idea, tell us
about it.
Hans Guijt
Received on 2024-07-13 15:34:00