On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:19 PM Михаил Найденов via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
> One last revision. I have decided "not to bother", but after the last meeting PM is now "conservative C++29" target, which was added as a point in the motivation.
> This is I think the realistic-to-optimistic target, mainly because there are 2 completely different proposals in flight, both of which doing too much for an initial release (in my opinion obviously).
> We have to define some scope and get something finally.
You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence for it.
The evidence is that from C++23, now we brace for C+29.
Besides, though there was progress, it is "nullified" by having a new proposal.
Why do you
think scope is the problem here?
Why do you think your proposal would
be adopted faster?
Limiting the scope is an easy way to reduce the amount of time needed.
We will not have to argue should we have
[member: 5] or [.member 5] or [.member: 5] for deconstructing w/ designators
and then what the customization point would be, should we have any,
if we don't have deconstructing w/ designators for the initial release.
As I said, I have decided to literally save my time and effort not bothering, but it is so glaring we are walking into another
concepts/contracts/modules/coroutines/executors design loops, that at least I had to propose a limited scope in hope we can avoid another rabbit hole.
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals