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
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
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
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
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):
> >
> >
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):
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
