But the other classes ARE stable, just not necessarily in ABI.
Their behaviour is stable, that's the promise given by the API.
It's the ABI they don't promise and std::stable does not imply
to me (and likely many others) that it's addressing ABI issue.
That's why I suggested stdabi:: since that implicitly implies that
std:: has ABI issues that can catch devs unawares at times.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 at 18:35, Hans via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 13/07/2024 16:57, zxuiji via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > I've gotten tired of this back and forth. I'm gonna put it like this,
> > think of ABIs like text.
> > When the only software it talks to is compiled by the same developer the
> > dev can use
> > whatever bloody encoding they like, other software be damned. But as
> > soon as talking
> > other software becomes necessary (such as a GUI library) the only real
> > option is unicode.
> > If you try any other encoding you'll be lucky if it's understood you
> > correctly.
> >
> > Likewise with ABIs. When the only software the ABI talks to is software
> > the dev compiled
> > then the dev can use whatever optimisations on that ABI they want. The
> > moment they
> > need to talk to other software (say the OS itself) there are no ifs,
> > buts or whats about it,
> > they MUST use the ABI the OS has provided. std::stable as I see it just
> > takes this concept
> > to communicating between different software in general, not just the OS.
>
> Exactly. Thanks for putting it so well.
>
> > On a different note I'd say std::stable is a bit too verbose, perhaps
> > shorten it to stdabi? Then
> > just mandate that stdabi cannot be vendor defined at the ABI level, only
> > at the implementation
> > level and even then, only if it does not effect the expected behaviour
> > of stdabi. I expect over
> > time stdabi:: would become it's own thing and vendors would still have
> > the option of std:: for
> > their own experiments.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of deep namespace hierarchies myself, but followed
> the example set by std::ranges and std::chrono. Putting explicitly
> stable classes in their own namespace reinforces the idea that other
> classes are not stable, and allows them to use the same name as their
> unstable counterpart, which helps with understanding.
>
>
> Hans Guijt
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>