Hacker News Reader

Comment by BlackFingolfin | Hacker News Reader

The definition in ISO/IEC Guide 2 for consensus is this:

> Consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.

So to me it is not at all clear that there was consensus within WG21.

John Spicer, the former chair of SG21 (the C++ Contracts Study Group), also seems to have doubts about that, see <https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2026/p4381r0...> -- which is quite self-critical.

Don't get me wrong, I am not taking sides here (I haven't even done any work in C++ in the last 10 years), but it does seem a bit more complex than how you paint it.

View on HN

> So to me it is not at all clear that there was consensus within WG21.

Not only was there no consensus, reports from the process described the behavior from contracts proponents in WG21 as political maneuvering and trying to ignore criticism by pretending that somehow consensus was not a goal and thus they could simply nominwlly reject and ignore any criticism.

There's a lot of personal attacks directed at Stroustrup but somehow it's left out of the story the fact that Microsoft apparently criticised the proposal as unimplementable. We're talking about feedback from the dominant compiler vendor.

> Microsoft apparently criticised the proposal as unimplementable. We're talking about feedback from the dominant compiler vendor.

It's implemented in GCC mainline, it's implemented on a branch of Clang. Considering MSVC: at this point in time I'm not convinced it it a question of implementability, but of will: https://cppstat.org/de/?tags=cpp26&type=lang

I appreciate that ISO/IEC tries to provide some definifion of consensus, but it's so vague that is borderline useless. Who decides what is "important" or "substantial"? Do we need an other round of consensus for that (making the definition circular)? Or is deciding what is "important" or "substantial" part of the process that is outlined in the second part of the definition (making the first part more or less redundant)? Or is it the opposition to decide if their presented issues are "important" (making it effectively a veto power)?

As for the second part of the definition, regarding the process, that all took place with a measurable outcome. Although "reconcile any conflicting arguments" might be interpreted as unanimity, but that's surely not the intent.

> I appreciate that ISO/IEC tries to provide some definifion of consensus, but it's so vague that is borderline useless.

Is it though?

I mean, in what world does the concept of consensus means it's ok to ignore all opposing remakes, criticism, and objections?

You have a proposal for the C++ standard which representatives from companies such as Microsoft rejected after describing it as being unimplementable, and knowing this it's supposed to be fine to push forward with it?

What was the plan here? Are these guys so out of touch that they thought petty political chicanery would compensate all the technical problems?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com