On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 11:22, Nathan Myers <n...@cantrip.org> wrote: > Neither does Ville have authority to speak on behalf of > the Library Evolution Working Group.
The slight difference, of course, is that I enumerated bits of rationale that were actually uttered in that discussion, rather than colorful suggestions of how the majority of LEWG must think that widespread abuse of a variant of cocaine is the sole reason why such a proposal even came to their plate. > The WG was firm but polite, this once. Expect greater > firmness, and less politeness, next time. Take the hint. Now, that *is* an invitation to dance. :D I shall, however, mostly pass the opportunity. In case you wish to ask me what hints I will and will not consider when evaluating whether to propose some hypothetical thing to the committee, feel free to ask for elaboration privately. > Asking the ISO WG21 C++ Standard committee to compensate > for one library's extended process failure is, at best, > rude and foolish. There's nothing rude in providing information that the committee may not have been aware of about compatibility issues with new standards. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
