On 21/07/2024 18:55, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 11:51 AM Hans via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Let's get back for a moment to my goals, because we are drifting away
>> from them. Here goes:
>>
>>
>> ***************
>>
>> I want to be able to mark some datastructures as guaranteed-stable, and
>> for the rest of the datastructures to have no stability guarantee.
>>
>> I hope that this will improve interface design in C++ in general (for
>> all libraries), and over time also free the standard library from its
>> current ABI concerns.
>>
>> ***************
>>
>>
>> That's it. That's _all_.
>
> But those are not your goals. Those are the means by which you will
> *achieve* your goals. Your actual goals being whatever you intend to
> do with those "datastructures [marked] as guaranteed-stable". That is,
> you want to be able to reliably do something with such data
> structures. Those "something"s are your goals. Marking "datastructures
> as guaranteed-stable" is the means by which you will achieve them.

You seem to believe that I have a current, on-going programming problem
in C++ that can somehow be solved by waiting a few years for
standardisation, and then a few more years for compilers to catch up. If
so, let me disabuse you of that notion: no, I have no goals beyond the
ones stated above. I have no issue that can be solved through this
method. I'm only hoping to contribute something useful to the language.

Please forgive me for thinking that that was the purpose of this list.


Hans Guijt