Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:14:47 -0800
> On Nov 26, 2025, at 2:57 PM, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:35 AM Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
>> Then *write a paper* that explains the problem, how people work with this API
>> design flaw (or pitfall), what the solution should do (not *how* it does), and
>> what other alternatives there are. One alternative to investigate is "do
>> nothing, this only happens with poorly-designed APIs".
>
>
> If the only use-case for 'std::chimeric_ptr' were to compensate for
> badly-designed API's then I'd still push for it. But I'm not so sure
> that that's the only use for it.
You still haven’t written a proposal so this conversation is pointless. Write a propose, spell out literally the entire API and use cases, the alternatives, the trade offs, stop just providing bits of random code. Random code is not a specification. It is not a proposal. It is not a use case.
No one can provide meaningful feedback to a proposal if there is no proposal.
Again, you have been told this multiple times, by multiple people, in almost much every (if not actually every) thread you have started on this list, if you do not actually provide a specification there cannot be any hope for a productive discussion of the feature you are proposing. If you don’t want to do the work required to make a proposal, then why should people on this list put any time into reading your emails. You’re getting to a “crying wolf” type situation where any thread you start will be ignored because people on the list know that there won't be a specification and so there’s no point in engaging with it.
That is _if_ they continue to stay on the list at all - at the moment you are the overwhelming source of new features, but none of them contain a specification, and you seem uninterested in providing them. Given such an environment why would people be interested in following the list? And voila you’ve just made the list useless for people who are willing to actually do the work you are at this point intentionally refusing to do.
—Oliver
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 12:35 AM Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
>> Then *write a paper* that explains the problem, how people work with this API
>> design flaw (or pitfall), what the solution should do (not *how* it does), and
>> what other alternatives there are. One alternative to investigate is "do
>> nothing, this only happens with poorly-designed APIs".
>
>
> If the only use-case for 'std::chimeric_ptr' were to compensate for
> badly-designed API's then I'd still push for it. But I'm not so sure
> that that's the only use for it.
You still haven’t written a proposal so this conversation is pointless. Write a propose, spell out literally the entire API and use cases, the alternatives, the trade offs, stop just providing bits of random code. Random code is not a specification. It is not a proposal. It is not a use case.
No one can provide meaningful feedback to a proposal if there is no proposal.
Again, you have been told this multiple times, by multiple people, in almost much every (if not actually every) thread you have started on this list, if you do not actually provide a specification there cannot be any hope for a productive discussion of the feature you are proposing. If you don’t want to do the work required to make a proposal, then why should people on this list put any time into reading your emails. You’re getting to a “crying wolf” type situation where any thread you start will be ignored because people on the list know that there won't be a specification and so there’s no point in engaging with it.
That is _if_ they continue to stay on the list at all - at the moment you are the overwhelming source of new features, but none of them contain a specification, and you seem uninterested in providing them. Given such an environment why would people be interested in following the list? And voila you’ve just made the list useless for people who are willing to actually do the work you are at this point intentionally refusing to do.
—Oliver
Received on 2025-11-26 23:14:54