[boost] Re: TR2 and C++0x heads up

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 20:21:11

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:d4mgtc$iq0$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:d4mg0e$gbs$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> |
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | news:d4lpbs$ftq$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> | > |
> | > | If you want to be sure to avoid wasted work you need to participate 
> in
> | > | the committee process and build consensus on the reflectors between
> | > | meetings... and even then it is possible to fail.  Dave H. didn't do
> | > | that AFAICT.  There's no good reason to think that Andrei's 
> impression
> | > | that "people really liked the idea" should be enough to ensure that
> | > | the next proposal would be accepted.
> | >
> | > but how should people know if their proposal has got a chance if not 
> by
> | > asking?
> |
> | It makes sense sometimes to ask if there is interest in a proposal. But 
> no
> | one should consider "interest" to imply any kind of commitment.
> |
> | It doesn't make sense to ask the LWG (let alone the committee as a 
> whole) to
> | pre-approve a proposal they haven't seen. They won't do it.
>
> the other case is also interesting: should "no interest" imply any kind of
> rejection?
> IMO, yes.

"No interest"  is mild rejection, "don't like it" or "standardization not 
needed" is stronger rejection, while "over my dead body" is total rejection 
(at least by whoever said that). All are red flags that a proposal could 
well be a waste of time, at least until something changes.

--Beman

--Beman