220 19609 <3388d6e8-41db-4e47-8b9d-96c0855601b4@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: isocppgroup@denisbider.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: try_realloc Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 179 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <3388d6e8-41db-4e47-8b9d-96c0855601b4@isocpp.org> References: <30f59ec7-0712-48fb-9df0-d66e3fe80c3c@isocpp.org> <2839762.j35TZXxY8Y@tjmaciei-mobl4> <20150802102813.GA6177@noemi.bahnhof.se> <7C86EFA3-F6B3-44B4-9B36-C2B583EBE43F@gmail.com> <15d79bb1-61b2-496d-ad8d-22d2c441b538@isocpp.org> <4D9A3974-B2CE-4C92-9C1E-10213AB67C53@gmail.com> <20150803000847.GA7843@noemi.bahnhof.se> <26ef5632-2004-498b-8212-f9cb8b7ad451@isocpp.org> <04258155-8308-4701-97ed-c7d49b2990e2@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2608_318137194.1438675537339" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1438675542 7007 80.91.229.3 (4 Aug 2015 08:05:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:05:42 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD5LNK7YQYJRBUXEQGXAKGQEWYDAYTQ@isocpp.org Tue Aug 04 10:05:40 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com ([209.85.213.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMXEB-0006pQ-Tt for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:05:40 +0200 Original-Received: by vkhl6 with SMTP id l6sf2171727vkh.2 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 01:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=ajLgkJnex1X5WnRTcOi/4kaUFH8AyiFn21b8yHqZvfQ=; b=MbJfnUnzxlFl+G4dUBnV2BNI25kTwwdKkRQeevLKw7R7165E5TQ0s353pEa5k+KP/D UF+ZPuWt3Jxw03A1XNLcrpZXhePSl3WPuePeLyePY3iVzjry9y9cGGrrYGq1Ls5gAM0H Z7tqOz/iZjN37rGWI/f00F764NXHYCEY30hXfO9gqAlXx8L5tiIKIpaV2aRy2CYjaFxW VuIUvZI3so4i5Q2n0ZFxtYJ4NJApzR+vK6x5LhLenp+szxwqR+LjwQ7tXTnwprCOiWeQ +a/48pA+7Veknx3fmGBARqISfjXxd3kF3qIn3lB22+MGnst4tLTL4XYR5uNJgeXsCwXm SwTw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmExKKO+jiePtrduNl5Y8qZcu/WH9DdXv4JMnHMLPdzhQ3d83nWH8OO+HCuvp9JF6xyyBrb X-Received: by 10.129.53.145 with SMTP id c139mr1997815ywa.28.1438675539096; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 01:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.20.69 with SMTP id 63ls41317qgi.30.gmail; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 01:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.101.243 with SMTP id u106mr21164qge.27.1438675537952; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 01:05:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: isocppgroup@denisbider.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org 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:19609 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2608_318137194.1438675537339 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2609_1631080478.1438675537340" ------=_Part_2609_1631080478.1438675537340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > N1085 is a WG14 proposal. Howard didn't fly into that meeting > because it was a C committee meeting, not a C++ committee > meeting. Both are ISO groups. Are you honestly saying that, in WG21, it would have worked differently? > What makes it futile is mostly that people don't agree on what > you're proposing. There's very little any process can do about that. There's legitimate interest in a relocatable property, to allow objects to be moved via realloc/memcpy. The people who don't agree are those who lack have the flexibility to see that an object is a concept, not a piece of data. That by copying bytes, the object-concept can move in memory. This works with the language as-is; with a variety of compilers and platforms; in practice. It is not clear that this proposal is not viable. If it is truly not viable, then I have worse things to say about you and your group than I already have. If you truly cannot adjust to the idea that an object-concept can be moved in memory, then God have mercy on your soul. That's all I can say. > I expect people to find an attending champion for their proposals > if they can't attend themselves. Many people have done that, > successfully. Yes. It's exactly what I said. The whole thing is based on personal passions. If someone isn't pursuing something, it's dead. There's no sense of duty to keep track of ideas, and reconcile them, even if they aren't your own. On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:22:05 AM UTC-6, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 4 August 2015 at 09:56, > > wrote: > > I could go on and continue and write formal proposals, as the above page > > outlines. > > The problem is that, based on what I have learned here, this would be a > > futile exercise. > > What makes it futile is mostly that people don't agree on what you're > proposing. > There's very little any process can do about that. > > > If something as simple N1085, dated as far back as 2004, never makes it > into > > the language, even after 11 years; simply because Howard didn't go to > the > > right meeting... well then. What chance does a proposal of mine possibly > > have? > > N1085 is a WG14 proposal. Howard didn't fly into that meeting because > it was a C committee meeting, not a C++ committee meeting. > > > You're putting up a checklist and a form, but if no one is shepherding > other > > people's proposals, this is an empty gesture. > > You can't expect people to fly to a meeting, for every proposal they > have. > > > I expect people to find an attending champion for their proposals if they > can't > attend themselves. Many people have done that, successfully. > -- --- 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/. ------=_Part_2609_1631080478.1438675537340 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> N1085 is a WG14 proposal. Howard didn't fly = into that meeting
> because it was a C committee meeting, not = a C++ committee
> meeting.

Both are = ISO groups. Are you honestly saying that, in WG21, it would have worked dif= ferently?


> What makes it futile= is mostly that people don't agree on what
> you're pr= oposing. There's very little any process can do about that.
=
There's legitimate interest in a relocatable property, t= o allow objects to be moved via realloc/memcpy.

Th= e people who don't agree are those who=C2=A0lack have the flexibility t= o see that an object is a concept, not a piece of data. That by copying byt= es, the object-concept can move in memory. This works with the language as-= is; with a variety of compilers and platforms; in practice.

<= /div>
It is not clear that this proposal is not viable. If it is truly = not viable, then I have worse things to say about you and your group than I= already have.

If you truly cannot adjust to the i= dea that an object-concept can be moved in memory, then God have mercy on y= our soul. That's all I can say.


=
> I expect people to find an attending champion for their proposals=
> if they can't=C2=A0attend themselves. Many people have = done that,
> successfully.

Yes. = It's exactly what I said. The whole thing is based on personal passions= .. If someone isn't pursuing something, it's dead.

There's no sense of duty to keep track of ideas, and reconcile = them, even if they aren't your own.


On Tuesday, Augus= t 4, 2015 at 1:22:05 AM UTC-6, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 09:56, =C2=A0<isocp...@denisbider.com&= gt; wrote:
> I could go on and continue and write formal proposals, as the abov= e page
> outlines.
> The problem is that, based on what I have learned here, this would= be a
> futile exercise.

What makes it futile is mostly that people don't agree on what you&= #39;re proposing.
There's very little any process can do about that.

> If something as simple N1085, dated as far back as 2004, never mak= es it into
> the language, even after 11 years; simply because Howard didn'= t go to the
> right meeting... well then. What chance does a proposal of mine po= ssibly
> have?

N1085 is a WG14 proposal. Howard didn't fly into that meeting becau= se
it was a C committee meeting, not a C++ committee meeting.

> You're putting up a checklist and a form, but if no one is she= pherding other
> people's proposals, this is an empty gesture.
> You can't expect people to fly to a meeting, for every proposa= l they have.


I expect people to find an attending champion for their proposals if th= ey can't
attend themselves. Many people have done that, successfully.

--

---
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-proposa= ls+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/<= /a>.
------=_Part_2609_1631080478.1438675537340-- ------=_Part_2608_318137194.1438675537339-- .