220 19623 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Rodr=C3=ADguez_Ibeas?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: try_realloc Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:21:56 +0100 Lines: 459 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: 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> <3388d6e8-41db-4e47-8b9d-96c0855601b4@isocpp.org> <09c795da-30c4-46b3-b136-25a1ccc1429a@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d139e0858c6051c7b5554 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1438690925 23668 80.91.229.3 (4 Aug 2015 12:22:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:22:05 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDIIVO6GQULBBZO4QKXAKGQEE3LPJHY@isocpp.org Tue Aug 04 14:22:00 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f197.google.com ([209.85.212.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMbEF-0003YW-UV for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:22:00 +0200 Original-Received: by wixh2 with SMTP id h2sf5826505wix.0 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=XItnWMQRDTafUipTA7dbJot5+NEy3aUYcLubsLvNoYY=; b=ied+6VaJlfRU6V0ELTLun0EsgXpJlxFzZcukvuGON6FUg39cP836Mi1h3W7S15jjdM IfYWT/IDKiNZ0lT+p9buPIEohTQ2nSWrkYV+MFZ/2sPPvlXHlpLN6IZfUXaML6y4jQuL vZRtKsJJwCwSgJmBHUlJXKzKSG9we50qggKWAMmGeKuOIo4YKjlNb3Dtlbey+hpPY/M3 pD/OZameZ5A1PQDrZfsQWo54+0QO8xB3JH3jUr6cabYOhYvzVmidl/aVtUg1deZqGqRY CqhCbX3NG1JD+KInkXhIu/72mg42M0kTBn21nNQACpwV4TGHwqaQ+cwu73J2hR19JuZl MOCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmlLubzxOs9jG0DGJlLE+umpSt7r1L/q8+u/sZzJ9mf0jGp2W7zPWcePvI92QSrjwjuION3 X-Received: by 10.112.122.42 with SMTP id lp10mr1029184lbb.5.1438690919444; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.28.100 with SMTP id a4ls64123lah.52.gmail; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.145.169 with SMTP id sv9mr3071949lbb.73.1438690917156; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bb9si564415lab.89.2015.08.04.05.21.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a; Original-Received: by labsr2 with SMTP id sr2so5905788lab.2 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.6.162 with SMTP id c2mr3057356laa.113.1438690916716; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: dribeas@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.152.43.170 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:21:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <09c795da-30c4-46b3-b136-25a1ccc1429a@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: dibeas@ieee.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dribeas@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-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:19623 Archived-At: --089e013d139e0858c6051c7b5554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I try to avoid going ad-hominem, and don't take it harsh, try to think about it. You are being childish here, you said you followed the process in coming here to discuss the idea, but as soon as there is no 100% agreement you bail out into personal remarks and attacks on other people. That is not what discussion means. You claim that ideas should be valued not by who presents them but by the idea itself, you also admit not to be knowledgeable in the language of the specification. Yet, when you are told that the idea is good, but that it cannot be "implemented" in the language as straightforward as you think you erupt into insults. You want to discuss ideas for their worth but half of your messages are offensive rants with no technical content. Let me tell you how this really went in a different conversation: - I want X - That is a nice to have feature, cannot be done exactly like that, let's work on that. [At this point there are two different approaches that aim to make the feature work within the language and are being discussed] - But that is not how I see X and I want this for yesterday you morons! You hate me and I hate you and how you do things. Being able to relocate objects in memory is a valuable idea, you are not the first to come up with it. Different people here have added to the discussion, there is currently a proposal being worked on (presented, in the process of being updated) and David Krauss. This is far far far away from the idea being rejected, as a matter of fact I see kind interest in making this work within the language, if not in your terms --you don't understand the complexity of maintaining a language-- in some terms. I am sorry that you felt rejection, and I am even sorrier that you cannot maintain a minimal amount of composure and attacked others. I am not in the committee, I do personally know some people that are. I won't defend them, not because they don't deserve it but because your attacks are not worth it. David On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:49 PM, wrote: > Ville - you are making my points! > > > Firstly: Yes! I am prone to make colorful remarks. But how level-headed I > am, and how good an idea I bring, are two independent concepts! Ideas need > to be accepted from anyone, level-headed or not, because they are not *that > person's *ideas, they are ideas, and they have merit regardless of who > voiced them. This is why it's wrong to require that the person who brings > the idea also represents it in meeting. Ideas need to be brought by anyone, > but *then *they need to be picked up by people more experienced with the > process. > > Now of course, the whole problem here is the volunteerism. Volunteers work > for whom? For their values; for their conscience; for their aspirations; > for themselves. This is not to say they won't serve others also. > > So: you're not set up to take ideas from people who can't represent them > well. > > > Secondly: Yes! I lack the knowledge to explain, in language terms, how > moving an object with memcpy is properly described. I can explain it in > intuitive terms, but this isn't the answer you want. The answer you want is > in terms of the existing language spec, and here I completely lack the > background. > > But just because I lack the background, doesn't mean the idea is bad! > Again, you're not set up to take ideas from people who bring them in > intuitive terms. > > Are you seeing, or are you not seeing, that if N libraries do the same > thing X, and this works under the language as-is, but it's undefined > according to specification - that the problem is in the specification, not > in the use? > > Are you seeing that someone who points this out is not necessarily in a > position to resolve the issue with the specification; but that this doesn't > mean that the issue should not be resolved? > > > Now, consider this: > > Why should it be possible for me to come to your mailing list, and unload > my ideas on you free of charge, no matter whether anyone likes, or will > accept, any of my proposals? > > Why should I not have to pay, for example, $100, or $200, to have a > suggestion be reviewed and considered, by someone in the standards process? > > Why should I not, in exchange for this payment, receive some assistance > with my deficiencies? > > Why do I have to become *part* of the standards process; to seriously > invest myself in it; when all I want is to float an idea, and have it be > properly represented? > > I understand I can hire someone to do this. Maybe someone on this list > would be willing to do so? I don't know! > > But what if this was a service, provided as a matter of course? What if > this was the interface by which language users, who want to just express a > need, could *communicate* these needs, in whatever non-expert ways they > can express them; and then *still* have these needs be properly > represented in meetings? > > Would that not be an improvement, over the current state of things? > > And the money collected this way - could it not be spent on something > useful? What if it - for example - helped pay for expenses of working group > meetings; or for the work done by the volunteers? > > > On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 2:34:12 AM UTC-6, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > >> On 4 August 2015 at 11:05, wrote: >> >> 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? >> >> Howard has the ability to attend WG21 meetings, so in a sense, yes. He >> could've >> solicited an attending champion for the WG14 meeting. He happened to have >> higher-priority things to do. That does not logically constitute proof >> that the >> process is somehow broken, regardless of whether you've decided that it >> is >> just because your ideas aren't immediately agreed on by the people on >> this forum (a forum which, I remind again, is not an official >> discussion forum of the >> standards committee - most people here are committee outsiders. The >> reason >> why it's suggested to float proposals here is that this forum provides >> feedback >> from technically able people.). >> >> >> 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. >> >> You have failed to answer how the lifetime of the moved-from object is >> handled. >> I said that its lifetime ends; you claimed it doesn't. That's complete >> nonsense, >> because the C++ memory model doesn't have such virtual memory, and an >> object is a region of storage, not something you have privately >> envisioned >> it to be. >> >> > 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. >> >> We'll see what happens when Pablo follows up. With regards to things >> you have to say, I don't think I could care less. >> >> > 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 fail to see what souls have to do with a technical discussion. If you >> want >> a proposal to be adopted, answer the feedback questions and keep >> your colorful remarks to yourself. If it's this hard for you to >> discuss a proposal >> or an idea, it's perhaps indeed better that you don't bother us with your >> ideas. We have plenty of people who are mature enough to understand >> that they do need to provide answers to the technical questions >> asked about their proposals. >> >> >> 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. >> >> And you expect that your ideas are automatically pursued by other >> people who have more >> urgent work to do? >> >> > There's no sense of duty to keep track of ideas, and reconcile them, >> even if >> > they aren't your own. >> >> Nonsense. We have issue lists for exactly that purpose, and >> hard-working volunteers >> who keep them up to date and follow open issues actively. Again, you >> haven't got >> the slightest idea of what you're talking about. >> > -- > > --- > 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/. > -- --- 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/. --089e013d139e0858c6051c7b5554 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I try to avoid going ad-hominem, and don't take it har= sh, try to think about it. You are being childish here, you said you follow= ed the process in coming here to discuss the idea, but as soon as there is = no 100% agreement you bail out into personal remarks and attacks on other p= eople. That is not what discussion means.

You claim that ideas shoul= d be valued not by who presents them but by the idea itself, you also admit= not to be knowledgeable in the language of the specification. Yet, when yo= u are told that the idea is good, but that it cannot be "implemented&q= uot; in the language as straightforward as you think you erupt into insults= ..=C2=A0 You want to discuss ideas for their worth but half of your messages= are offensive rants with no technical content.

Let me tell you how = this really went in a different conversation:

- I want X
- That i= s a nice to have feature, cannot be done exactly like that, let's work = on that.
[At this point there are two different approaches that aim to = make the feature work within the language and are being discussed]
- But= that is not how I see X and I want this for yesterday you morons! You hate= me and I hate you and how you do things.

Being able to relocate obj= ects in memory is a valuable idea, you are not the first to come up with it= ..=C2=A0 Different people here have added to the discussion, there is curren= tly a proposal being worked on (presented, in the process of being updated)= and David Krauss. This is far far far away from the idea being rejected, a= s a matter of fact I see kind interest in making this work within the langu= age, if not in your terms --you don't understand the complexity of main= taining a language-- in some terms.

I am sorry that you felt rejecti= on, and I am even sorrier that you cannot maintain a minimal amount of comp= osure and attacked others.

I am not in the committee, I do personall= y know some people that are. I won't defend them, not because they don&= #39;t deserve it but because your attacks are not worth it.

=C2=A0 = =C2=A0David


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:49 PM, <isocppgroup@deni= sbider.com> wrote:
Ville - you are making my points!

Firstly: Yes! I am prone to=C2=A0make colorful remarks. But=C2= =A0how level-headed I am, and how good=C2=A0an idea I bring, are two indepe= ndent concepts!=C2=A0Ideas need to be accepted from anyone, level-headed or= not, because they are not that person's ideas, they are ideas= , and they have merit regardless of who voiced them. This is why it's w= rong to require that the person who brings the idea also represents it in m= eeting. Ideas need to be brought by anyone, but then they need to = be picked up by people more experienced with the process.

Now of course, the whole problem here is the volunteerism. Voluntee= rs work for whom? For their values; for their conscience; for their aspirat= ions; for themselves. This is not to say they won't serve others also.<= /div>

So: you're not set up to take ideas from peopl= e who can't represent them well.


Secondly: Yes! I lack the knowledge to explain, in language terms, how mo= ving an object with memcpy is properly described.=C2=A0I can explain it in = intuitive terms, but this isn't the answer you want. The answer you wan= t is in terms of the existing language spec, and here I completely lack the= background.

But just because I lack the backgroun= d, doesn't mean the idea is bad! Again, you're not set up to take i= deas from people who bring them in intuitive terms.

Are you seeing, or are you not seeing, that if N libraries do the same th= ing X, and this works under the language as-is, but it's undefined acco= rding to specification - that the problem is in the specification, not in t= he use?

Are you seeing that someone who points thi= s out is not necessarily in a position to resolve the issue with the specif= ication; but that this doesn't mean that the issue should not be resolv= ed?


Now, consider this:
<= br>
Why should it be possible for me to come to your mailing list= , and unload my ideas on you free of charge, no matter whether anyone likes= , or will accept, any of my proposals?

Why should = I not have to pay, for example, $100, or $200, to have a suggestion be revi= ewed and considered, by someone in the standards process?

Why should I not, in exchange for this payment, receive some assist= ance with my deficiencies?

Why do I have to become= part of the standards process; to seriously invest myself in it; = when all I want is to float an idea, and have it be properly represented?

I understand I can hire someone to do this. Maybe s= omeone on this list would be willing to do so? I don't know!
=
But what if this was a service, provided as a matter of cour= se? What if this was the interface by which language users, who want to jus= t express a need, could communicate these needs, in whatever non-e= xpert ways they can express them; and then still have these needs = be properly represented in meetings?

Would that no= t be an improvement, over the current state of things?

=
And the money collected this way - could it not be spent on something = useful?=C2=A0What if it=C2=A0-=C2=A0for example - helped pay for expenses o= f working group meetings; or for the work done by the volunteers?
=C2=A0

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 2:34:12 AM UTC-6, Ville Voutil= ainen wrote:
On 4 August 2015 = at 11:05, =C2=A0<isocp...@denisbider.com> wro= te:
>> N1085 is a WG14 proposal. Howard didn't fly into that meet= ing
>> because it was a C committee meeting, not a C++ committee
>> meeting.
> Both are ISO groups. Are you honestly saying that, in WG21, it wou= ld have
> worked differently?

Howard has the ability to attend WG21 meetings, so in a sense, yes. He = could've
solicited an attending champion for the WG14 meeting. He happened to ha= ve
higher-priority things to do. That does not logically constitute proof = that the
process is somehow broken, regardless of whether you've decided tha= t it is
just because your ideas aren't immediately agreed on by the people = on
this forum (a forum which, I remind again, is not an official
discussion forum of the
standards committee - most people here are committee outsiders. The rea= son
why it's suggested to float proposals here is that this forum provi= des feedback
from technically able people.).

>> 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 allo= w objects to
> be moved via realloc/memcpy.
>
> The people who don't agree are those who lack have the flexibi= lity 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.

You have failed to answer how the lifetime of the moved-from object is = handled.
I said that its lifetime ends; you claimed it doesn't. That's c= omplete nonsense,
because the C++ memory model doesn't have such virtual memory, and = an
object is a region of storage, not something you have privately envisio= ned
it to be.

> It is not clear that this proposal is not viable. If it is truly n= ot viable,
> then I have worse things to say about you and your group than I al= ready
> have.

We'll see what happens when Pablo follows up. With regards to thing= s
you have to say, I don't think I could care less.

> 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 fail to see what souls have to do with a technical discussion. If you= want
a proposal to be adopted, answer the feedback questions and keep
your colorful remarks to yourself. If it's this hard for you to
discuss a proposal
or an idea, it's perhaps indeed better that you don't bother us= with your
ideas. We have plenty of people who are mature enough to understand
that they do need to provide answers to the technical questions
asked about their proposals.

>> I expect people to find an attending champion for their propos= als
>> if they can't attend themselves. Many people have done tha= t,
>> successfully.
> Yes. It's exactly what I said. The whole thing is based on per= sonal
> passions. If someone isn't pursuing something, it's dead.

And you expect that your ideas are automatically pursued by other
people who have more
urgent work to do?

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

Nonsense. We have issue lists for exactly that purpose, and
hard-working volunteers
who keep them up to date and follow open issues actively. Again, you ha= ven't got
the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

--

---
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/gro= up/std-proposals/.

--

---
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>.
--089e013d139e0858c6051c7b5554-- .