draft VS team

I should have said the "latest standard", not "spec", if we're being technical. But EVERY bit of official material is very clear about asserting that C++23 is still a preview/in-progress, not a standard. Saying otherwise is, strictly speaking, incorrect.

https://isocpp.org/std/the-standard

https://www.iso.org/standard/79358.html

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/papers/n4951.md

[3] https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/tag/n4917

*This is a joke, but only barely so.

pdf

I'm currently going through Annex A of C++20, but I can't find the definition of "designator brace-or-equal-initializer", and couldn't find much formal information on it in an obvious way. The newest source on [decl] (https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/source/declarations.tex) also doesn't seem to have it. Am I missing anything, or is this a missing definition in the standard grammar?

> I don't have a copy of the standard at hand, can anyone quote the relevant section?

The C++ (draft) standard is on GitHub! [0] Compiling it needs Perl and some LaTeX packages, but is reasonably straightforwards otherwise. In addition, links to specific draft standards can be found on cppreference [1].

But anyways, in the first C++20 post-publication draft (N4868), the wording you're interested in is in multiple sections. Section 22.2.3 Sequence Containers [sequence.reqmts] has Table 78: Optional sequence container operations [tab:container.seq.opt] (starting on page 815), which states that a precondition of pop_back() is that empty() returns false. Section 16.3.2.4 Detailed Specifications [structure.specifications] (page 481) states:

> Preconditions: the conditions that the function assumes to hold whenever it is called; violation of any preconditions results in undefined behavior.

Therefore, calling pop_back() on an empty vector results in undefined behavior.

> Is this something that in practice is implemented in different (exception-throwing) ways?

Based on a quick glance at the major implementations (libc++ 15.0.7 at [2], MSVC at [3], libstdc++ at [4]), it looks like asserts are used. Whether those result in exceptions probably depends on whether the asserts are compiled in in the first place and how they are implemented, but it's definitely not a guaranteed exception.

[0]: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft

[1]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/links

[2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-15.0.7/lib...

[3]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8dfdcc7b7bf66834a7...

[4]: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3...

Which standard specifically are you quoting there? I checked an old and a new C++ draft in https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/tree/main/papers, and in neither one did 6.3 have anything like that.

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/download/n4917/n4917.pdf (page 1, chapter 1 scope):

PRs for C++ are at https://github.com/cplusplus/draft But the discussion for a PR is via https://isocpp.org/std/submit-a-proposal

C/C++

By the way, https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/tag/n4910 , says

It's just as true today, though. When the Rust mod team resigned en masse in 2021, it was announced by a programmer (the author of ripgrep) [0], and the conflict was with the core team (also programmers). A supermajority of their contributors to open source projects are programmers, so most famous meltdowns are going to be conflicts between programmers, not between programmers and the tiny minority of non-technical contributors.

I'm still waiting for anyone to give an example of an open source project meltdown that was triggered by non-technical contributors.

[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671

the mods publicly outlined the governance issue, while keeping the moderation issue private (https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671)

Here's another list: https://github.com/rust-lang/team//blob/d4c071b86c33683845919cf27eabf33e15fb6784/teams/interim-leadership-chat.toml

they linked their (user)names:

https://github.com/rust-lang/team/blob/2cea9916903fffafbfae6...

You can also check rust-lang/team repo, where shows more than 400+ people have worked on the Rust Project as official members. And on thanks.rust-lang.org, it shows that 300+ people have been involved in each recent release. I believe the number of active contributors may be more than 100+.

Right, but this type of drama isn't new in the community. A while back the whole mod team resigned because they were not able to hold the core team accountable. In fact I remember it being said that the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves. So I don't think I'm being dramatic at all here.

If that's too onerous, you can also look at the list of directors and observe that there are people titled "Project Director" who you can look up on https://github.com/rust-lang/team and observe that they have in fact been selected from the project teams.

You're more than welcome to set the narrative straight. The infighting among Rust maintainers is based partially on your resignation note where you said the Core Team was "unaccountable" https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 and implied that they were untrustworthy. The same people that once went around starting language wars, like calling Zig a "massive step backward" for the industry https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783244.

I'm just an outsider observer, who's been watching the sparks fly. It's been interesting as well to watch how quickly memories changes when positions are dangled. If there's ever an investigative report on the tribulations of Rust, they can also dig into the allegations of nepotism around one maintainer and his girlfriend on the project, vis-a-vis Amazon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28633113.