Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:13:56 -0700
> On Oct 30, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 3:56 PM Brian Bi wrote:
>>
>> There is no need to submit another issue about "some people think that
>> relocatable means memcpyable". We already have national body comments
>> about that, which will be considered in Kona. In Kona there probably won't be
>> any time to consider any issues that are not national body comments.
>
>
> Are you telling me that I must ask the head of the British panel to
> put this forward for the Kona meeting next Wednesday?
No, you would have had to bring it up with your national weeks or months ago, and then if you could convince them to agree, they would have introduced an NB comment.
This is a large standard produced by an international standards body, not a toy project where you can change things on a whim at the last minute.
Being incredulous about having to follow the same rules as everyone else is not appropriate. The only reason you are unable to provide feedback is that you chose not to even the most basic work: reading the specifications and proposals going into the standard in a timely manner, which you demonstrably did not.
I’m uninterested in listen to you express frustration at a problem for which you are solely responsible.
The only reason for your sense of urgency is that you learned about it, again at the last minute, because you could not be bothered reading any of the specification, and instead have continued to do exactly what you have been repeatedly told is not a valid way to understand the standard: “testing the implementation” - the reason you earlier decided to spam Matt with near demands for hosting hardware that was absolutely unnecessary. Literally the only thing you have needed to do was read the specification, which is again something you have been told before.
That said, as myself and others have mentioned multiple times in this thread: there are already plenty of NB comments expressing the these concerns, you are not the first to express this concern, and far from the first, it is a very obvious trade off balance problem.
—Oliver
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 3:56 PM Brian Bi wrote:
>>
>> There is no need to submit another issue about "some people think that
>> relocatable means memcpyable". We already have national body comments
>> about that, which will be considered in Kona. In Kona there probably won't be
>> any time to consider any issues that are not national body comments.
>
>
> Are you telling me that I must ask the head of the British panel to
> put this forward for the Kona meeting next Wednesday?
No, you would have had to bring it up with your national weeks or months ago, and then if you could convince them to agree, they would have introduced an NB comment.
This is a large standard produced by an international standards body, not a toy project where you can change things on a whim at the last minute.
Being incredulous about having to follow the same rules as everyone else is not appropriate. The only reason you are unable to provide feedback is that you chose not to even the most basic work: reading the specifications and proposals going into the standard in a timely manner, which you demonstrably did not.
I’m uninterested in listen to you express frustration at a problem for which you are solely responsible.
The only reason for your sense of urgency is that you learned about it, again at the last minute, because you could not be bothered reading any of the specification, and instead have continued to do exactly what you have been repeatedly told is not a valid way to understand the standard: “testing the implementation” - the reason you earlier decided to spam Matt with near demands for hosting hardware that was absolutely unnecessary. Literally the only thing you have needed to do was read the specification, which is again something you have been told before.
That said, as myself and others have mentioned multiple times in this thread: there are already plenty of NB comments expressing the these concerns, you are not the first to express this concern, and far from the first, it is a very obvious trade off balance problem.
—Oliver
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
Received on 2025-10-30 18:14:02