I'm not saying the process should be quick or easy. And there are plenty of
advocates for removing UB, given how much ADA2 lang demonized it.

But I have a distinct feeling there's simply no discussion. It goes
something like this:

X - We need to build an airplane

Y1 - Nothing heavier than air can fly, right?

Y2 - What is an airplane?

Y3 - Steam locomotives are bad at flying.

вт, 9 дек. 2025 г. в 01:19, Brian Bi <bbi5291_at_[hidden]>:

> I'm going to try to be empathetic. The standardization process is a lot of
> work to get through. One of the unfortunate realities is that, even if it
> feels obvious that there is something additional the standard can
> guarantee---because it is already true on all implementations and there is
> no legitimate reason to ever create an implementation where it isn't
> true---that does not mean there's some quick process to get that guarantee
> into the standard. You still have to write a paper and present it at a
> meeting. And, in doing so, you might discover that what you thought was
> true (that there is no legitimate reason for keeping it UB) is not true
> after all, because someone else presents an argument that you hadn't
> considered.
>
> And nowadays (maybe you don't like it, but it is the reality) there are a
> lot of folks who feel that removing UB is not by itself sufficient
> motivation because, in their view, giving sanitizers permission to diagnose
> a questionable operation is more helpful to the programmer than making the
> operation defined. That does not mean that we cannot remove UB, but it does
> mean you have to come in with some kind of positive motivation for defining
> the UB, not just "we should do this because we can".
>
> Participating in standardization is a lot of hard work and it's totally
> understandable that a lot of people feel that the amount of effort required
> is disproportionate. That's why we have a few hundred people who come to
> meetings rather than thousands.
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 2:51 PM Nikl Kelbon via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I've been seriously disappointed with this email address (std-proposals)
>> for a long time now and don't see the point in posting here.
>>
>> It mostly looks like most of the proposals are written by "perpetual
>> motion machine inventors" and the responses are from first-year students.
>> How can anything serious disscussed under these conditions?
>>
>> It's no wonder I haven't seen a single discussion of anything actually
>> accepted as a standard here.
>>
>> So I'll close this thread as useless.
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>
>
> --
> *Brian Bi*
>