Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 20:54:47 -0800
> On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:33 PM, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:14 PM Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>
>> No one can provide meaningful feedback to a proposal if there is no proposal.
>
>
> It's funny, I've been on this mailing list a few years but only in the
> last few days did I realise something. . .
>
None of this is relevant. It’s an excuse for not doing the work required for a standards proposal.
>
> I think most of you folk on this mailing list are 'computer
> scientists'. You want stuff written down -- This should do This, That
> should do That. But I think an engineer -- I'm speaking
> stereotypically of course -- would much prefer a working prototype to
> play around with and come back and ask questions later.
No. We need a specification to know what it is you are proposing.
I sent a very detailed email to you, by your ISO registered name which you are still not using, explaining why implementations are irrelevant.
No one knows what in your implementation you are actually proposing, no one knows what are bugs, no one knows what are implementation details, and not everyone can look at your implementations because they aren’t covered by ISO IP licensing terms in which case we literally have no way of knowing anything at all.
Just write a specification. It should not be hard, it is literally the bare minimum of a proposal.
>
> In my own mind -- and yes I realise that I speak about one unique mind
> -- what I've give you all so far is more than enough to get talking
> about this. You have my original paper, you have Arthur's blog which
> is decent, and for the love of the sweet mother of divine Jesus Christ
> and the twelve apostles, I've given you a full working prototype. You
> can literally go on GodBolt and play around with my new compiler
> feature.
Your original paper
>
> Oliver I know we've been back and forth a few times, and as I've said
> to you I'm trying to accept with equanimity the contrast in our
> personalities, but sometimes I'm left thinking, "Why does this guy
> need the blatantly-obvious written down in black and white all the
> time when the code is very clear?". I mean I think my GodBolt link
> tells ya nearly everything you need to know -- you can edit the code a
> little, see what it does, add another base class and come back to me
> with "I notice it does X, but shouldn't it do Y instead?" -- that
> would open up discussion.
I would like you to stop insulting me.
I would like to stop having to deal with offensive replies to me as if me asking for the literal bare minimum was unreasonable.
I would like you to write an actual proposal. I would like you to listen when you have been repeatedly told, by multiple people, in multiple threads, that random code is completely irrelevant.
Provide a proposal, with specifications, if you don’t want to do that, stop spamming this mailing list.
Stop. Insulting. Me.
Stop. Personal. Attacks.
These are the most basic ISO rules you agreed to when you became an ISO member. I do not know why I have had to send you multiple replies saying that insulting me, and sending offensive replies, is not remotely approaching appropriate or professional behavior. I’m no longer expecting any kind of apology for this behavior, and I am no longer willing to accept it.
>> 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.
>
>
> I'm preparing a paper on "std::chimeric_ptr" but I want more
> discussion on it first -- particularly I want to disassemble Thiago's
> argument that it's only use is to compensate for bad programming. I
> want to unravel that before putting a lot of work into writing
> something that I might disagree with later.
You can’t disassemble Thiago’s argument, because their argument is based on guesswork about what you’re proposing due to your outright refusal to actually provide an actual specification.
Your first email on any proposal should include the specification. Your refusal to do this, your ongoing personal attacks, and your unwillingness to listen to feedback on the repeated problems with your proposals means that you are intentionally wasting the time of everyone on this list.
I do not understand why you have no interest in writing a real proposal, and I do not understand your complete lack of respect for the time of everyone else on this list, but at this point I do not care. Stop insulting me, and stop wasting everyone else's time.
Also, use your iso registered name, not a pseudonym. If you don’t want a “proposal" to be associated with your iso registered name, then don’t post them.
—Oliver
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:14 PM Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>
>> No one can provide meaningful feedback to a proposal if there is no proposal.
>
>
> It's funny, I've been on this mailing list a few years but only in the
> last few days did I realise something. . .
>
None of this is relevant. It’s an excuse for not doing the work required for a standards proposal.
>
> I think most of you folk on this mailing list are 'computer
> scientists'. You want stuff written down -- This should do This, That
> should do That. But I think an engineer -- I'm speaking
> stereotypically of course -- would much prefer a working prototype to
> play around with and come back and ask questions later.
No. We need a specification to know what it is you are proposing.
I sent a very detailed email to you, by your ISO registered name which you are still not using, explaining why implementations are irrelevant.
No one knows what in your implementation you are actually proposing, no one knows what are bugs, no one knows what are implementation details, and not everyone can look at your implementations because they aren’t covered by ISO IP licensing terms in which case we literally have no way of knowing anything at all.
Just write a specification. It should not be hard, it is literally the bare minimum of a proposal.
>
> In my own mind -- and yes I realise that I speak about one unique mind
> -- what I've give you all so far is more than enough to get talking
> about this. You have my original paper, you have Arthur's blog which
> is decent, and for the love of the sweet mother of divine Jesus Christ
> and the twelve apostles, I've given you a full working prototype. You
> can literally go on GodBolt and play around with my new compiler
> feature.
Your original paper
>
> Oliver I know we've been back and forth a few times, and as I've said
> to you I'm trying to accept with equanimity the contrast in our
> personalities, but sometimes I'm left thinking, "Why does this guy
> need the blatantly-obvious written down in black and white all the
> time when the code is very clear?". I mean I think my GodBolt link
> tells ya nearly everything you need to know -- you can edit the code a
> little, see what it does, add another base class and come back to me
> with "I notice it does X, but shouldn't it do Y instead?" -- that
> would open up discussion.
I would like you to stop insulting me.
I would like to stop having to deal with offensive replies to me as if me asking for the literal bare minimum was unreasonable.
I would like you to write an actual proposal. I would like you to listen when you have been repeatedly told, by multiple people, in multiple threads, that random code is completely irrelevant.
Provide a proposal, with specifications, if you don’t want to do that, stop spamming this mailing list.
Stop. Insulting. Me.
Stop. Personal. Attacks.
These are the most basic ISO rules you agreed to when you became an ISO member. I do not know why I have had to send you multiple replies saying that insulting me, and sending offensive replies, is not remotely approaching appropriate or professional behavior. I’m no longer expecting any kind of apology for this behavior, and I am no longer willing to accept it.
>> 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.
>
>
> I'm preparing a paper on "std::chimeric_ptr" but I want more
> discussion on it first -- particularly I want to disassemble Thiago's
> argument that it's only use is to compensate for bad programming. I
> want to unravel that before putting a lot of work into writing
> something that I might disagree with later.
You can’t disassemble Thiago’s argument, because their argument is based on guesswork about what you’re proposing due to your outright refusal to actually provide an actual specification.
Your first email on any proposal should include the specification. Your refusal to do this, your ongoing personal attacks, and your unwillingness to listen to feedback on the repeated problems with your proposals means that you are intentionally wasting the time of everyone on this list.
I do not understand why you have no interest in writing a real proposal, and I do not understand your complete lack of respect for the time of everyone else on this list, but at this point I do not care. Stop insulting me, and stop wasting everyone else's time.
Also, use your iso registered name, not a pseudonym. If you don’t want a “proposal" to be associated with your iso registered name, then don’t post them.
—Oliver
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
Received on 2025-11-27 04:54:58