On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 01:14, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development <[email protected]> wrote: > With this I can totally agree. As I said countless times, the only way > to influence such naming decisions is working _with_ upstream (by the > way, the meetings are pretty much public) and bringing your arguments on > naming there. After, it's too late, and as an overall minority in C++ > we'll get those decisions made by someone else and we'll just have to > live with them. It's not a good position to be in. > > Between C++11, 14, 17 and 20, by heart I can only name _one_ thing that > has been introduced in the Standard Library which has had an inspiration > coming from Qt (C++20's std::map::contains()).
For what it's worth, we have had a TQtC employee in the standards committee for three years, and that employee (in case it's unclear, I'm talking about me) has been a committee member for a decade. The request "can you help us write/champion/defend a proposal for $foo?" has landed in my inbox exactly zero times during either of those periods, from Qt developers. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
