Date: 2005-04-27 21:45:23
> 1. is it implementable?
> 2. has it been implemented?
> 3. has the implementation been tested?
> 4. has it been used? how widely?
> 5. is it sufficiently useful?
> 6. can it be specified rigorously for a standard?
> 7. does it integrate well with the rest of standard C++?
> How many of these criteria were applied to export? :o)
Sorry, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. The decision to approve
export was made a decade ago, in a situation that is very different than
the present one, and many of the faces have changed since then. The
committee, IMO, made a mistake back then, and some committee members have
chosen to draw a lesson or two from the experience. I don't think that
you're suggesting that the committee should continue to commit the same
kind of mistake, so I'm not sure that I understand your point, here.
> And to illustrate bias again, why weren't:
> 8. can it be implemented efficiently?
> 9. could users pay for features they're not using?
No bias has been illustrated. As Dave noted, I didn't mention these
criteria because they are not pertinent to the present discussion. The
fact that my list of criteria was not meant to be exhaustive is signified
by the ellipsis that appeared at the end of the list (you chose not to
include the ellipsis when you quoted me), and the sentence that reads
"this is not meant to be an exhaustive list...." :-)
> From there to "evil spirits" it's a long way.
Not a long way. You seemed to be presuming, without evidence or other
rational justification, that there was a conflict of interest or
unintentional bias. I mentioned "evil spirits" in order to draw a
parallel to another form of superstition.
> At the end of the day, it's very true: one has to sell one's design,
> that happens exactly because appreciating ("buying" :o)) a design is an
> experience that has a strong subjective aspect to it.
Maybe. But before subjective criteria are considered, folks like me are
going to ask questions that can be answered objectively. If the answer to
too many of those questions is "no" or "we don't know," then the
subjective criteria don't much matter to me. Again, I can't speak for
anyone else, but I can say that I applied the same tests to every
proposal, and the proposals that failed a large number of these tests
didn't receive my support. There is no need to postulate any kind of bias
-- intentional or otherwise -- against particular proposals or proposers
in order to explain why some papers were less well received than others.
-- Robert Klarer
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk