On 8/3/21 11:07 PM, Emile Cormier via Std-Proposals wrote:

Sorry, but who do you expect to get involved in a C++ language extensions encumbered by patents? Does your "C++ Superset" allow a patent-free, open-source implementation?

Part of what I mentioned is patent pending but I can certainly loosen restrictions, but the Root Pointer headers will remain patented.

BTW thank God software can now be patented. Here's my anecdote:

- I was working for Corel Linux back in 2000 until Microsoft dissolved it;

- I wrote my own Fornux Powercalc and proposed it to Microsoft but got silently embraced and extended my Microsoft Powertoys:

https://github.com/philippeb8/fcalc

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Powercalc.PNG

- Herb Sutter from Microsoft almost embraced and extended the logic of Root Pointer:

https://github.com/hsutter/gcpp

So sorry for the patent implications but this is the only way to protect ourselves these days.

Obviously following ISO standards is the way to go on the long term and to have robust support from other commercial compilers is desirable at the same time.

Again:

- 70% of cybersecurity problems are memory safety issues;

- memory management is the leading cause of security vulnerabilities in Google Chrome;

So 1 + 1 = 2. If we do not solve these problems then we'll have a huge national security issue with legacy code.

So this is my contribution to the community at the same time.

Also Linus Torvalds said that "C++ solves the wrong problems" and perhaps he was right if he was referring to memory management, but not anymore. He can just run a C++ Superset compiler over his kernel and be done with memory leaks and segfaults.

Regards,

--

Phil Bouchard
Founder & CTO
C.: (819) 328-4743