Just in case there was any doubt; there is more than Oliver who is annoyed
here… likely most others found a way to mute your replies and I have not
made that effort yet. Hoping you get a clue from countless people telling
you to.

I wrote for the last time on this list I think a year ago, as I mostly read
conversation but you have managed to make this a relatively annoying /
depressing experience. It is now becoming increasingly incoherent and yet
oddly personal and passive aggressive at the same time.

If you are looking for validation , I heard chatgpt is good at it so please
do give that a try. Otherwise please accept that you have overstayed your
welcome.

Cheers.

Sent from Gmail Mobile


On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 13:55 Oliver Hunt via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> > 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
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>