Re: [text] [review] Text formal review result

From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-27 17:55:47

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 18:48, Edward Diener via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> You have raised a bunch of hackles here. The LEWG, along with all other
> C++ standard committees, seems to me so much less open to debate than
> Boost is that it is hard to know what to say about your assertion that
> "This list is not very welcoming". Nor can anything ever be found out
> from the C++ standards committee why such and such was accepted or
> rejected, or what the arguments were about after the fact.

Have you tried asking a committee member, or just asking on std-discussion?
It also seems to me that there tends to be a multitude of meeting trip reports
that cover why such and such was accepted or rejected.

> poobahs of the C++ standard committee I have often found to be largely
> unfriendly and closed in their determination that only they really know
> what is good or not for C++.

Sure; some of them need a fairly strong rationale to be convinced otherwise. :)