220 38018 <21d17228-7967-4847-b2ce-f1c0be3c1406@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: variant again Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 108 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <21d17228-7967-4847-b2ce-f1c0be3c1406@isocpp.org> References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_4619_117507586.1524749593578" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1524749469 21572 195.159.176.226 (26 Apr 2018 13:31:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:31:09 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBGVKQ7LQKGQERSGKXTI@isocpp.org Thu Apr 26 15:31:05 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ua0-f200.google.com ([209.85.217.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fBgzI-0005U6-QE for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:31:04 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ua0-f200.google.com with SMTP id g34sf21112692uaa.9 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:33:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=IADgcXwxZbmblujqHqvcw2k7pEH1qGlZwdoI5Jx9vHE=; b=s9KVh7Jf+Y25p1IRYG8P/OQ0fhyS4x7RG4muxBlL6lNFfbw1VMkOijcHsyG8rqEpLc V2oUza5A8LU29teidudbYbOKZ8tKeY3ho23XHhs4uqr4bp9AIjSkSrG5Hh0NWwu69Jg1 26HCqX9cz+bbW69nI8TGF6sAzMIDW/pJfE4pvl68X8YBrOidQlttJKkI+6lF/MX3TKfJ 18LCsFxTiAeJ3m9ZZeAmc7fJKX40u9h22HCZ4cq1mEWgdS2Ja8VBqNViETmJwy2kgmRm Zk0H4LiSX7FDec5bsAkbb2IR4B6l2AV4X8ze7Z7JawWbzm/J1JLnsql1Y5M14lsk64Tk fuMQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=IADgcXwxZbmblujqHqvcw2k7pEH1qGlZwdoI5Jx9vHE=; b=gZ3D9CuM20OVhgqmPFk38H1Eug8j91OVYmNrCQTdO4s843Sdo9y6/TA28wo4MTzoOJ sGdko8ZptpV7rxxXv2J0oMTjYn9QpAuWMi0cBLomaG9X9GIBKw3ZGDDJXydXkTlh32hD W+xZvJ6qtk2A8nWKl2IgRnw5hpWPxUE4R5e+9atkwUFpqhfH8YAhf1/iJsyHOW7TU9CU 8W6vPwc8WLh+CQPkz2j7FbgWFBMttns8uDjiDBnr3cBjhtg/Yh66trRtawH69vWix1AP dUnJ2UkpP7f/ksrDQ2r8cfflno0vBzgayleUTzBy///kaA3hkmWHoT7jmh0IZPP5vAoq XbaQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version: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=IADgcXwxZbmblujqHqvcw2k7pEH1qGlZwdoI5Jx9vHE=; b=F+v4SNr9ju5hW9J5QCmy6GxK90wfK3cVMn05P3DMhMyjHuZE7AK9/8YKJFwEbqIGxn 2sHf39d5sqF82VOBh3S7LT9dT9osBigd2dbekqSjX8gnEVkMwj00sts029rvOOZX1wTR ihAzRtbiibGDJUNFrlF+sPPpSfEcFklvHOd4XamH07nbirXa1NpKfjVrAP1kRRL+teM6 naDHpayOtwd086N+E5O+fBdH6LIh+qpF6mPxiKJvcIhAdFXnDil/8GOwdsv4vJPBgull msyV0FxCALoHOuPYYPoru3Noiq3XEeeHn9kYtVlRvYenbvmbWv1tcS33OvWnxpu2fcTc i2fg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBCVHT2z4TLYYzzNLP8ycS+quhrydADYkeeKwZVNam3yroRqt31 46V8rIgOdUmSCjFhr05METdekQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoUI4DZEeSiwqWcAAl+6fTAaiAqjV95qudiQxPHfDWg0ud7ia7TgPAAANop7NVEip2tpXk3Zg== X-Received: by 10.31.49.15 with SMTP id x15mr176260vkx.122.1524749595458; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.31.153.85 with SMTP id b82ls12743057vke.11.gmail; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:33:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.31.199.67 with SMTP id x64mr4812906vkf.7.1524749594308; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:33:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@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:38018 Archived-At: ------=_Part_4619_117507586.1524749593578 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4620_1603175667.1524749593578" ------=_Part_4620_1603175667.1524749593578 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:45:18 PM UTC-4, Nevin ":-)" Liber wrote: > > For instance, in JAX we had to spend nearly a day debating making the > built-in signed integer types always wrap, and by doing so we didn't get to > any papers that might have added new operations and/or types that wrap. > Was it necessary? Yes, because by our rules we had to debate it. Was it a > good use of our time? IMO, no, both because it was extremely unlikely that > wrapping the built in signed types would pass (it didn't) and now we don't > have any progress on adding ops/types that wrap. > I disagree with the idea that such a discussion was not a good use of time. If you pre-emptively ignore people without giving them a fair hearing, you create problems down the line. By giving these minority viewpoints a fair hearing, even if they're unlikely to succeed, you at least give them the sense that the standardization process is reasonable. This makes such people more likely to be willing to continue to participate in it, and it makes the people watching the process less likely to rebel against it. Now sure, some people will never, *ever* be satisfied by anything less than getting exactly what they want. For them, a hearing is "fair" based on its output; if it comes to the "right" conclusion (ie: they get what they want), then its "fair". But there's nothing to be done for such people, so we need not give them further thought. Democracy is slow, and from the perspective of the eventual compromise, it appears to wastes time. But it has the advantage of making even defeated parties feel like they're actually part of the process, rather than subjects of some faceless oligarchy with no actual power. The importance of that should not be so easily discounted. I'm not saying that repeatedly debating the same points ad nausium is a good thing. The variant discussion has already been had, and nothing has materially changed about that discussion. But the wrapping signed integer question was a different matter and deserved a hearing, even if it's not something that was ever likely to pass. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/21d17228-7967-4847-b2ce-f1c0be3c1406%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_4620_1603175667.1524749593578 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:45:18 PM UTC-4, Nevin &= quot;:-)" Liber wrote:
For instance, in JAX we = had to spend nearly a day debating making the built-in signed integer types= always wrap, and by doing so we didn't get to any papers that might ha= ve added new operations and/or types that wrap.=C2=A0 Was it necessary?=C2= =A0 Yes, because by our rules we had to debate it.=C2=A0 Was it a good use = of our time?=C2=A0 IMO, no, both because it was extremely unlikely that wra= pping the built in signed types would pass (it didn't) and now we don&#= 39;t have any progress on adding ops/types that wrap.

I disagree with the idea that such a discussion was= not a good use of time. If you pre-emptively ignore people without giving = them a fair hearing, you create problems down the line. By giving these min= ority viewpoints a fair hearing, even if they're unlikely to succeed, y= ou at least give them the sense that the standardization process is reasona= ble. This makes such people more likely to be willing to continue to partic= ipate in it, and it makes the people watching the process less likely to re= bel against it.

Now sure, some people will never, ever be sat= isfied by anything less than getting exactly what they want. For them, a he= aring is "fair" based on its output; if it comes to the "rig= ht" conclusion (ie: they get what they want), then its "fair"= ;. But there's nothing to be done for such people, so we need not give = them further thought.

Democracy is slow, and from the perspective of= the eventual compromise, it appears to wastes time. But it has the advanta= ge of making even defeated parties feel like they're actually part of t= he process, rather than subjects of some faceless oligarchy with no actual = power. The importance of that should not be so easily discounted.

I&= #39;m not saying that repeatedly debating the same points ad nausium is a g= ood thing. The variant discussion has already been had, and nothing has mat= erially changed about that discussion. But the wrapping signed integer ques= tion was a different matter and deserved a hearing, even if it's not so= mething that was ever likely to pass.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/21d17228-7967-4847-b2ce-f1c0be3c1406= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_4620_1603175667.1524749593578-- ------=_Part_4619_117507586.1524749593578-- .