Cut the crap. Are you a committee member or not?







At 2026-04-19 00:21:57, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago_at_macieira.org> wrote:
>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.