Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License

Subject: Re: [boost] Microsoft vs The Boost License
From: Phil Bouchard (philippeb8_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-06 14:36:17

On 08/06/2017 12:05 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On 5 August 2017 at 21:21, Phil Bouchard via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
>> On the promotion side to ISO I know the procedures are strict (like a
>> thesis you have to defend in person) and takes some time but it looks like
>> I reached to point of no return ;)
> 
> 
> Maybe the Microsoft *vs* root_ptr way of looking at things is wrong. Herb
> Sutter presented an idea (never stated it was all his) and wrote in his
> words a "Toy" implementation, with no promiss of going beyond this, to
> demonstrate that idea. It sounds to me like an invitation for some-one to
> implement the real deal. That some-one could be you. So why don't you
> rename root_prtr (again :-) ) to deferred_ptr and incorporate any (other)
> ideas in HS's, that you might have missed, and I guess you will have an
> early supporter.

Thanks for the idea but I don't need Microsoft's "intellectual" or 
marketing help as root_ptr is 99.99% completed and there is nothing else 
I can possibly need to add to it.