https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119170
--- Comment #14 from Alejandro Colomar <alx at kernel dot org> --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11) > The ISO Code of Ethics and Conduct includes "We abide by the policies of ISO > and embrace the concepts of compromise and consensus building, and notably > in the development of ISO standards and other deliverables, and we accept > and respect consensus decisions.". That certainly applies to the choice of > name and semantics for an operator proposed for addition to the standard. Hi Joseph, I do embrace the concept of consensus building. However, the attitude of certain committee members wasn't up to what I can stand. Since those committee members complained about wasting their time choosing a name, I'm going to take that as direction, and not give them a choice on the name, as they requested. There seemed to be consensus on not wasting committee time on choosing names, isn't it? So we could say I'm respecting that consensus. Of course, if someone comes to me respectfully with reasons for changing a name, I will be open to discussion, but the ultimate decision on the name will be mine. I've had enough with _Countof. Cheers, Alex
