Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vkucru$1lt2f$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: We have a new standard! Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:05:34 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 22 Message-ID: <vkucru$1lt2f$3@dont-email.me> References: <C++-20241227154547@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <cone.1735354270.316807.177566.1000@ripper.email-scan.com> <vkojb7$96o6$1@dont-email.me> <vkp50p$ce10$1@dont-email.me> <vkr4ve$sksr$1@dont-email.me> <vkrk4l$10d4e$1@dont-email.me> <vkshgh$1799g$1@dont-email.me> <86wmfhbexa.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:05:34 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="60c17b8524eb9cbd07a8161a28a5c214"; logging-data="1766479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+30ewyy3D92qbLQE8rJ43GuSg/8jY3Vk4=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:wWtIZ+WT9QthSRPA+iU1WbSBJ5g= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <86wmfhbexa.fsf@linuxsc.com> Bytes: 2190 On 30/12/2024 12:14, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Personal opinion: the comments from David Brown do more harm than > good here. At some level he is just a guilty of giving a preachy > opinion as the person he is responding to. It seems likely that > his statements will exacerbate the offending behavior rather than > diminish it. Opinion noted. I disagree that I was giving a "preachy /opinion/", but I can accept that my posts were somewhat "preachy" in style. What influence it may have on Muttley (or anyone else giving unjustified opinions on a standard they have not looked at) remains to be seen - I don't think anyone is in a position to predict accurately. (I don't always agree with such feedback, but I do always try to give it fair consideration.) Perhaps we can have a more topical discussion about the actual changes and new features in C++23?