On Saturday, 18 April 2026 08:15:06 Pacific Daylight Time Zhao YunShan wrote:
> The committee should maintain a more professional and technical stance. Some
> of the questions and responses always sound like excuses.

The two sentences appear to be connected but may not be. This mailing list is
not the committee. We are a bunch of C++ developers who are gathered here to
discuss proposals, and some of us are in the committee. But this is not the
committee and feedback here is not committee's feedback. You do not need this
mailing list to submit proposals to the committee either.

So if the two sentences are connected, you are misunderstanding this list.

If they are not connected, we can ignore the second and ask what feedback you
have got from the committee on your paper, which you've found to be less than
fully professional or technical.

> I proposed this two years ago, and today, progress remains at zero. Since
> some claim that Interceptors are useful, why haven't they pushed to get
> this proposal into the Standard? If the committee were truly serious about
> this, it wouldn't have taken this long, nor would they still be nitpicking.

What progress have *you* made on it? I don't recall a paper being submitted,
which is the only thing that makes changes to the language. I might have
missed it, though. Can you point to the paper and the feedback from the
committee?

If you have not written a paper, you should not be surprised there was no
progress. There would be no progress because *you* made no progress.

Once again: the proposal's author is supposed to write the paper describing
the feature, alternatives, advantages and hopefully the actual language
change, present it to the committee, argue for it, and adapt it with the
feedback received. Maybe you'll find someone who is just as enthusiastic about
the feature as you are, who will take those steps on your behalf. But that is
not a guarantee.

> Thiago, I don't need your lectures, and you're in no position to teach me. I
> hope you can come up with a solution that is actually convincing and earns
> some respect.

I am not trying to lecture you and you are free to ignore my feedback.

If you're asking whether I can develop a better solution for interception, I
don't want to. I don't see the value in standardising this, because it's
something I maybe use once every two years, and for which the current
solutions work just fine.

I am not saying your idea is valueless. I am saying that I don't see sufficient
value for me to take it through standardisation. But you do see value, and you
do have a reasonable (if still rough) proposal for syntax. If you don't think
this list is providing you with useful feedback, then take the next step and
write the paper.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.