[locknitpicker]

> Easy, even one of the author's could not change WG14 mind towards security.

Your comment conveys a hefty dose of ignorance on the topic. I recommend you read the proposal's arguments, including how it required breaking the ABI.

[pjmlp]

Are you asserting that WG14 never had the necessary skills among all the members to help improve this proposal, or dare to bring another one during the last 40 years?

[uecker]

This has not much to do with skill. Standardization does not work like this, and I told you this before.

[pjmlp]

Yeah, I keep missing the existing practice in secure C compilers that is supposed to land on a WG14 paper.

You can tell me the times you wish for, I will keep playing my trumpet until I see something in C that resembles to Modula-2 was offering in safety, nowadays brought back by Zig.

[uecker]

Your trumpet does not help and is just annoying.

[locknitpicker]

> Are you asserting that (...)

No, I called out your opinionated ignorance on the topic.

> WG14 never had the necessary skills among all the members to help improve this proposal (...)

Frankly I don't think you even understand what you're arguing. I mean, to start off, if an idea is feasible then do you think it needs a full blown committee joining forces to magically fix all the problems?

> (...) or dare to bring another one during the last 40 years?

Again, you are showing a hefty dose of ignorance in the topic. Do you even understand that anyone can put together a proposal? That's how the process works. If you feel so strongly about it, where is yours? What have you been doing for the past 40 years?

[pjmlp]

Who is more ignorant here, you repeating calling me that, or WG14 not doing anything to improve security since the Morris worm in 1988?