Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2026 00:22:51 +0800 (CST)
Sorry, WhenAny
At 2026-04-18 23:45:46, "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 at 18:15, Zhao YunShan via Std-Proposals
><std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I proposed this two years ago, and today, progress remains at zero.
>
>I'm sure you can provide a link to a P-numbered paper for that proposal then.
>
>> 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.
>
>Since we are not in a position to teach you, you already know that the
>committee will not write a proposal for you.
>Therefore it's only logical that your question about why this hasn't
>been pushed into the standard must
>be rhetoric, and you already know the answer.
At 2026-04-18 23:45:46, "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 at 18:15, Zhao YunShan via Std-Proposals
><std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I proposed this two years ago, and today, progress remains at zero.
>
>I'm sure you can provide a link to a P-numbered paper for that proposal then.
>
>> 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.
>
>Since we are not in a position to teach you, you already know that the
>committee will not write a proposal for you.
>Therefore it's only logical that your question about why this hasn't
>been pushed into the standard must
>be rhetoric, and you already know the answer.
Received on 2026-04-18 16:22:57
