The continued work on the 2D GFx API as a C++ standard is concerning. Since we're sending a GFx engineer to the committee, and AFAIK we're not going to use such an API to build our GFx stack, the arguments against continued development seem very compelling:
- there are no clear users or demand for this feature from the community, - there is higher impact work that a 2D drawing library depends on, - there is higher impact work in general, and - the committee does not have infinite time, I'd rather see the committee focus on things like object lifetime management so we don't have to port everything to Rust just to get basic memory safety guarantees. How much leverage do we have to push on that? Thanks, --Jet On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Botond Ballo <bba...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hi everyone! > > The next meeting of the C++ Standards Committee will be June 4-9 in > Rapperswil, Switzerland. > > This is going to be a pivotal meeting, with go / no-go decisions > expected for several highly-anticipated C++20 features, including a > subset of Modules; Coroutines; Ranges; and "natural syntax" Concepts / > abbreviated function templates. A discussion of whether or not to > continue efforts to standardize 2D Graphics is also scheduled (see > arguments for [1] and against [2]). In addition, work will continue on > various Technical Specifications that are in flight (including, > notably, Reflection), and processing the large influx of new language > and library feature proposals. > > If you're curious about the state of C++ standardization, I encourage > you to check out my blog posts where I summarize each meeting in > detail (most recent one here [3]), and the list of proposals being > considered by the committee (new ones since the last meeting can be > found here [4] and here [5]). > > I will be attending this meeting, hanging out in the Evolution Working > Group (where new language features are discussed at the design level) > as usual. As always, if there's anything you'd like me to find out for > you at the meeting, or any feedback you'd like me to communicate, > please let me know! > > Finally, I encourage you to reach out to me if you're thinking of > submitting a proposal to the committee. I'm always happy to help with > formulating and, if necessary, presenting a proposal. > > Cheers, > Botond > > > [1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0988r0.pdf > [2] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1062r0.html > [3] https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/trip-report-c- > standards-meeting-in-jacksonville-march-2018/ > [4] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/# > mailing2018-02 > [5] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/# > mailing2018-04 > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
