Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 02:17:52 +0100
Ok,Thank youSent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: Oliver Hunt <oliver_at_[hidden]> Date: 9/2/25 2:13 AM (GMT+01:00) To: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> Cc: std-proposals_at_[hidden], Simon Schröder <dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Delete...why not a parameter by reference?! > On Sep 1, 2025, at 5:11 PM, organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> wrote:> > Hello Oliver,> There is a lot of email traffic in the community and that's good to see.> I just saw your reply, buried inside.> Thanks again for your time and efforts, they are much appreciated.> > It looks like we are both trying so hard to repeat the same things we are saying over and over.> I would like to reboot this thread, but this time we will use a Q&A approach, likewise, I can lay down my thought process, and we can pin point any wrong assumptions. > If the error is correct-able, then I will adjust and carry on, otherwise the proposal is void since one of it's pilar is weak.A Q&A is not needed - your proposal is easy to understand, why you believe it works is similarly easy to follow. The problem is that it does not, for many different reasons that have already been explained by multiple people on this list.The problem here is not that we are confused about what your proposal is, or why you think that it works. The problem is that you have simply ignored or rejected all the feedback explaining why it does not do what you think it does, why it is not able to solve problems that are not _already_ solved by more robust existing measures, and the myriad other problems it introduces - including _more_ use after free bugs.“Rebooting” the thread just so that we have to spend more time providing the same feedback we already have done without that feedback being addressed is not a good path forward.The path forward is I have said: you need to put more work into understanding the threat model, the c++ language model, the abstract machine model, and actually understanding the feedback you have already received. Then come back with an updated version of this proposal that addresses all of the feedback you have received. This is pretty much the bare minimum that would be expected of any author of any paper.—Oliver
-------- Original message --------From: Oliver Hunt <oliver_at_[hidden]> Date: 9/2/25 2:13 AM (GMT+01:00) To: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> Cc: std-proposals_at_[hidden], Simon Schröder <dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden]> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Delete...why not a parameter by reference?! > On Sep 1, 2025, at 5:11 PM, organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> wrote:> > Hello Oliver,> There is a lot of email traffic in the community and that's good to see.> I just saw your reply, buried inside.> Thanks again for your time and efforts, they are much appreciated.> > It looks like we are both trying so hard to repeat the same things we are saying over and over.> I would like to reboot this thread, but this time we will use a Q&A approach, likewise, I can lay down my thought process, and we can pin point any wrong assumptions. > If the error is correct-able, then I will adjust and carry on, otherwise the proposal is void since one of it's pilar is weak.A Q&A is not needed - your proposal is easy to understand, why you believe it works is similarly easy to follow. The problem is that it does not, for many different reasons that have already been explained by multiple people on this list.The problem here is not that we are confused about what your proposal is, or why you think that it works. The problem is that you have simply ignored or rejected all the feedback explaining why it does not do what you think it does, why it is not able to solve problems that are not _already_ solved by more robust existing measures, and the myriad other problems it introduces - including _more_ use after free bugs.“Rebooting” the thread just so that we have to spend more time providing the same feedback we already have done without that feedback being addressed is not a good path forward.The path forward is I have said: you need to put more work into understanding the threat model, the c++ language model, the abstract machine model, and actually understanding the feedback you have already received. Then come back with an updated version of this proposal that addresses all of the feedback you have received. This is pretty much the bare minimum that would be expected of any author of any paper.—Oliver
Received on 2025-09-02 01:17:59