220 4849 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: std::sequence Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:36:39 +0300 Lines: 101 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <4551abbc-43aa-4520-a91a-f8eb25a90588@isocpp.org> <2c8e6079-9c87-425a-93e2-39251df57cd8@isocpp.org> <9f1cace3-0503-4a3c-a8ce-d7546564b3ef@isocpp.org> <1c991e6e-6bc3-4822-9ffd-7f2508e63974@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04446a93e7896e04de55d8e1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1370360201 7919 80.91.229.3 (4 Jun 2013 15:36:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:36:41 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBCETXCGQKGQEGTUL7AY@isocpp.org Tue Jun 04 17:36:42 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-gg0-f199.google.com ([209.85.161.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UjtHu-0008No-6E for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:36:42 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-gg0-f199.google.com with SMTP id o1sf333669ggn.2 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=3aCnd3/bmF1vZ8Z1CyuCPZDzytIUtI15KfZjYsSNzXU=; b=bpVkd1sHztuDc3OBV6RhJnD1eHG9bXmYfU21WTIPFwFAF4cipse5c0u5bjT0z79K5B cfJnqHWfcKVp8ovgYBOaTE1N9KNhAIcSq8AVzdrS9AhlDfH8fCqh9gqy8R+xrrDEFbLm bVG2niL1FckJ9XWkNlAoSsjUe3ABTXzRwlTqrmT4DYlL6tYBDRX31ROI11N/wf2pjeH/ xDMXsk+OfOwyM9JAb4kcFYUEj0ABSLXRdzzTwBwtdhdS99mLezaymoUPXAhRGE+xLPKF 7ebV4CbmxM9flQWx3R5OgJHBHUmB5iccdCZPoQQU79P2tarV6VrZxUzExh5BcameMV92 sq0Q== X-Received: by 10.236.21.198 with SMTP id r46mr14572486yhr.12.1370360201300; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.86.202 with SMTP id r10ls364770qez.86.gmail; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.94.170 with SMTP id dd10mr27813453qeb.31.1370360199614; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u7si16109338qcu.88.2013.06.04.08.36.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234; Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id a10so232005qcx.11 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.161.207 with SMTP id s15mr8541239qcx.8.1370360199476; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.224.174.143 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1c991e6e-6bc3-4822-9ffd-7f2508e63974@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:4849 Archived-At: --f46d04446a93e7896e04de55d8e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 4 June 2013 17:27, wrote: > > I don't really see how that's an argument, especially considering again >> that Google and LLVM *do* need this functionality. They didn't write >> those functions just because they could. Does your class get as much usage >> as all internal Google and LLVM C++ projects? If not, then I would rather >> defer to the guys who have the usage experience. >> > > Since explaining this to you, endorsement comes out as the heart of your > objection? You need to realize that there is a call for library proposals > and that this is the forum for such proposals: "The door is open for > submissions of features to be added to the standard library, and we would > love to see them not only from existing community libraries like Boost, > Poco, and Qt, but from *you*.". Proposals > don't need your endorsement watchdogging. Let's stay squarely on topic. > > > At any rate, a proposal that's based on something that has wide user experience has a better chance at making it into the standard. A proposal that's loosely similar to such existing practice but significantly different benefits from having a section describing such differences and their rationale. This forum, however, is not an official feedback channel. Then again, Nevin, Jeffrey and Jonathan (and myself) are committee members, so I would recommend taking their feedback seriously. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en. --f46d04446a93e7896e04de55d8e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 4 June 2013 17:27, <carrierandoperator@yahoo.co.u= k> wrote:

I don't really see how that's an argument, especially consider= ing again that Google and LLVM do need this functionality. They didn= 't write those functions just because they could. Does your class get a= s much usage as all internal Google and LLVM C++ projects? If not, then I w= ould rather defer to the guys who have the usage experience.

Since explaining this to you, = endorsement comes out as the heart of your objection? You need to realize t= hat there is a call for library proposals and that this is the forum for su= ch proposals: "The door is open for submissions of features to be added to = the standard library, and we would love to see them not only from existing = community libraries like Boost, Poco, and Qt, but from you.".=A0Proposals don't need your endorsement watchdogging. Let's stay= squarely on topic.



At any rate, a proposal that's based on so= mething that has wide user experience has a better chance
at = making it into the standard. A proposal that's loosely similar to such = existing practice but significantly
different benefits from having a section describing such differences and th= eir rationale.

This forum, however, is not an official fe= edback channel. Then again, Nevin, Jeffrey and Jonathan
(and myself) are= committee members, so I would recommend taking their feedback seriously. <= br>

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
--f46d04446a93e7896e04de55d8e1-- .