On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 3:19 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 2:17 PM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, 9 June 2025 15:55:32 Brasilia Standard Time René Ferdinand Rivera
>> Morell via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> > > I find this interesting... but not surprising.
>> >
>> > It would be more useful to provide the feedback with less sarcasm and
>> > abrasion. Just say what the paper is missing, why it's badly structured,
>> > and if you feel like it and provide pointers and direction as to getting
>> > help improving it. We've been new at writing papers at some point.
>> >
>> >
>> > PS. Yes, I'm aware of that other thread regarding this paper. And that
>> > context still doesn't justify the insuations here.
>>
>> Several people told Frederick, repeatedly, that he was coming up with a
>> solution in search of a problem, that he had not yet explained the motivation
>> for doing what he was doing, that the implementation details were mostly
>> irrelevant. And yet he proceeded to write a paper that had all the flaws that
>> had been pointed out.
>>
>> Plus, this is a pattern of behaviour. That's why Arthur said it's not
>> surprising.
>
>
> > PS. Yes, I'm aware of that other thread regarding this paper. And that
> > context still doesn't justify the insuations here

Then perhaps you need to broaden your context. Because it's not one
thread. On a lark, I decided to look back at the archives from 2023.
When asked to motivate one of his ideas, the OP said
(https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/2023/01/5406.php):

>> A good proposal needs to start with motivation.
>
>The conversation we're having right now takes more time and effort than
copy-pasting the following paragraph into Section 17.9.6 of C++26:

In that context, the OP is stating clearly and unequivocally that
simply making the proposed change is easier than justifying whether
the change should actually be made.

When putting forth another idea, the OP stated
(https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/2023/01/5414.php):

> Now I know some of the regulars here on the mailing list think that
> this is a place where you're supposed to put forward your proposal and
> argue ardently as to what problems your proposal solves and why we
> need to burden the language lawyers and compiler vendors -- but I
> think this can also be a place for thought experiments, and I don't
> think people should hesitate to make weird suggestions because we
> might strike gold one day on something that seemed ridiculous when it
> was first posited.

Now, this is just the first stuff I found from a quick check of early
2023. Two and a half years ago. I could find more if I were so
inclined. My point is that trying to engage the OP honestly on the
question of motivations for their proposals has been tried. Many
times. Over several years.

And even after 2+ years, they are still ignoring or hand waving those
questions away.

So I feel like a sarcastic reply pointing out that the person who has
a history of not caring about motivations in their proposal continues
to not care about motivations in their proposals is not unreasonable.