3 ms·
> The ISO committee should not be in the business of inventing language features out of whole cloth. That is not how “standardization” works. They should only s
by rewmie 3y ago
> The ISO committee should not be in the business of inventing language features out of whole cloth. That is not how “standardization” works. They should only standardize existing practice.
How do you expect to standardize a feature that does not exist yet but the whole community is demanding?
It sounds like the C++ standardization committee designed a feature following a process where all stakeholders had a say. Is this worse than being force-fed a vendor-specific solution?
- david2ndaccount 3y agoI do not expect standardization of features that do not exist.
- rewmie 3y ago> I do not expect standardization of features that do not exist. But that makes absolutely no sense, doesn't it? I mean, think about it for a moment. Specifying a standard behavior is not about picking a flawed winner from a list of ad-hoc implementation or settle with the least common denominator. Specifying a standard behavior is about providing the best possible solution that meets the design requirements following the input from the whole community.
- kazinator 3y ago> How do you expect to standardize a feature that does not exist yet but the whole community is demanding? Implement it in a popular compiler or library. I know we are talking about C++, but the ISO C committee, over the past several decades, has repeatedly ignored working, good features in GCC and invented crap in their place.
- maccard 3y agoThis is part of the modules mess in the first place. Modules were implemented in MSVC and clang, and neither agreed with the others implementation. Also if MSVC came along with an "extension" to c++, I can only imagine the uproar suggesting that this is now step 2 of EEE.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]