On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:32 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote:
> I would never have guessed that any committee would have thought the failure
> of the graphics API proposal was that it didn't go far enough.
I think of web_view as a change of direction compared to the graphics
API proposal, rather than goin
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:05 PM Nathan Froyd wrote:
> One grotty low-level question about the new exception proposal. Your
> post states:
>
> "it was observed that since we need to revise the calling convention
> as part of this proposal anyways, perhaps we could take the
> opportunity to make ot
On 7/30/2019 4:40 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:04:56PM -0400, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:42 PM Botond Ballo wrote:
If you're interested in some more details about what happened at last
week's meeting, my blog post about it is now available (also on
Plane
I want to underline how insane this is:
"...the groups which looked at [the web_view] proposal [...] largely viewed
it favourably, a promising way of allow C++ applications to do things like
graphical output without having to standardize a graphics API ourselves, as
previously attempted."
I feel l
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:04:56PM -0400, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:42 PM Botond Ballo wrote:
> > If you're interested in some more details about what happened at last
> > week's meeting, my blog post about it is now available (also on
> > Planet):
> >
> > https://botondballo
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:42 PM Botond Ballo wrote:
> If you're interested in some more details about what happened at last
> week's meeting, my blog post about it is now available (also on
> Planet):
>
> https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-cologne-july-
Hi folks!
If you're interested in some more details about what happened at last
week's meeting, my blog post about it is now available (also on
Planet):
https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-cologne-july-2019/
Cheers,
Botond
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:2
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 5:21 PM Botond Ballo wrote:
> I'm not technically allowed to talk about the discussions that have
> taken place so far this week (and in any case nothing is final until
> the plenary votes on Saturday), but please do check /r/cpp on Saturday
> and have a look at the collabo
Hi Jason,
You're definitely not the only one with this concern! Contracts and
undefined behaviour have been a heated topic for quite some time, and
concerns like yours have motivated proposals like this one [1] to
address them.
> We could use this only if Clang adds a mode that, contrary to the s
Botond,
Presumably it's too late for the ongoing meeting, but I'm very concerned
about C++20 assertions.
The proposal says that in a release build, any contract violation is
undefined behavior. Sounds reasonable enough.
Every assertion adds potential UB. Hmm.
ISTM this makes the feature very mu
Hi everyone!
The next meeting of the C++ Standards Committee (WG21) will be July
15-20 in Cologne, Germany.
(Apologies for not sending this announcement sooner!)
This is a particularly important meeting because the committee aims to
publish the C++20 Committee Draft, a feature-complete draft of
11 matches
Mail list logo