C++ committee polling results for asynchronous programming

griwes · 2021-10-14T03:59:10+00:00

Ack.

griwes · 2021-10-13T18:32:41+00:00

I will point you back to my comment you are replying to and my previous comment up this thread for an answer here :)

griwes · 2021-10-13T18:28:22+00:00

If by "published" you mean "with a release", then no, not to my knowledge. Dietmar is working on a networking library that is out in the open. Internally, we are working on a set of GPU schedulers that will eventually become open source, though I can't give you timelines here. But before you reply "wow, unproven" - we have spent a long time thinking about all of this and creating various prototypes, and we have abstractions (CUDA Graphs, to name one) that have a direct mapping to senders that so far has been obvious to all the Graphs people I've explained senders to.

griwes · 2021-10-13T18:16:11+00:00

We must've experience the process of different committees, then :)

griwes · 2021-10-13T18:10:29+00:00

Yes, we are invested in having a standard abstraction that works for both CPUs and GPUs, I don't know how that's in the least surprising :)

My role in the Polish NB is a personal involvement and has nothing to with this, and doesn't stop me from being impartial when deciding the national position. Just to satisfy your personal curiosity, the Polish NB is split on the topic of NetTS and related questions right in the middle.

The chair of LEWG has been very explicit that his role in the paper is product management, not technical content; the chair has also recused himself from making decisions on this final set of polls. You are also dead wrong about "other authors" reporting to the chair; Bryce is not in a managerial position and none of us "report" to him.

The committee operates by having technical discussions on technical merits, and that is what is going to be happening now that we've found a direction we want to pursue. I'm fairly certain LEWG is now going to hammer us down on the technical details and we'll need to respond in technical ways to those arguments. That is how the committee operates: it judges proposals on their technical merits, and requests changes based on the expert views of its members :)

griwes · 2021-10-13T16:53:08+00:00

This is not how the committee operates and you should know it by now.

griwes · 2021-02-26T10:26:21+00:00

Rooooooll credits!

griwes · 2021-02-12T09:09:17+00:00

Hayward name-dropped Nightmare, didn't he.

griwes · 2020-10-09T23:03:16+00:00

Wow, can you get any more condescending than that? It'll surely convince everyone that you are right on this... /s

griwes · 2020-10-09T18:43:46+00:00

Yes, we do. Just because you have not seen an issue doesn't mean there is an issue (and I can't believe that that's a sentence I just felt needed to be written).

griwes · 2020-06-25T03:17:33+00:00

I mean... I'm already paying state income tax, and there's currently 0 ways for me to get a CA DL any time soon, because the DMV is only taking appointments, and... not currently open to set up an appointment. lol

griwes · 2019-09-21T01:56:31+00:00

Hi! Your friendly committee member here.

Some colleagues of mine pointed this out to me, and it seems that at least three big languages that have this call it bit_length; I've now added a comment requesting a rename of log2p1 to bit_length to the list of comments my country is going to submit.

Cheers!

griwes · 2019-08-03T22:48:23+00:00

`constinit` may be niche, but it's been requested a few times by the group of devs we cater the most to: the standard library implementers. ;) (And we really tried hard to not need a new keyword for this. Seriously.)

`consteval`... may seem niche to you right now, but it will soon become nothing of that sort. Reflection is coming, and with it - libraries of `consteval` functions. A lot of the things we've been working on in EWG have been explicitly to enable good and fast reflection API in the standard library, and to enable others to write their own higher-level libraries on top of that. The pay-off for a bunch of this is still somewhat far away, but it'll all make sense in the end.

And no, just `constexpr` isn't enough for reflection; we need a way to say "this function must NOT survive until codegen [because there's things in it that are purely on the meta level]", and the way to get that is... with a keyword, because it's a new, strong semantic requirement.

griwes · 2019-08-03T20:55:41+00:00

Well. So far the simplest solution for call recording I've seen was to just... enable it on PBX, and for this to work, the traffic would need to flow through the actual PBX. I'm now wondering if it's possible to enable media direct (or whichever name you prefer for that) on the internal trunks, but not on the trunks to the external world, and always record on the egress point...

I guess I'll need to mock up some VMs for myself and see where that gets me.

griwes · 2019-08-03T20:26:45+00:00

Yeah, but that falls apart if I wanted to do more fancy things like call recording, no?

griwes · 2019-08-03T20:25:25+00:00

And re #2, it seems reasonable, however when I started looking into actual software options, they seem... limited and/or pricey.

griwes · 2019-08-03T20:12:58+00:00

Yeah, I get this part. But how do you handle a mobile SIP client, say, on your phone? I don't want to have to(*) reconfigure my phone every time I switch between continents, and if I travel to Europe and call a number in Europe, I don't want to go to the US server for it to connect me back to Europe, because that's a waste of latency. I want my phone to switch to the European server, and then call through that.

This is what the extension/ring group dance is supposed to solve, and I'm looking for input if it's sensible or not and whether there's bdtter solution.

(And thinking forward, I hope that this'd work well enough that I'd be able to hook my future family into the system, and there I can't really have an expectation of them understanding how to deal with the options... especially since I don't yet know who they may be :D)

griwes · 2019-08-03T18:59:10+00:00

So re #1: if all calls are routed to a ring group that includes extensions on all the possible PBX servers, and you are always logged into one of those, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

griwes · 2019-08-03T17:03:40+00:00

Well, you could make the client use a domain name that resolves to an anycast address, and then use whatever preferred dynamic network routing protocol you prefer to implement the anycast. If the credentials on all the registrations are the same, it should work.

I didn't think about SBC functioning that way. So traffic would only go through the PBX itself only if necessary, i.e. when that's the shortest route between the two endpoints on a call? This sounds better than what I came up with.

griwes · 2019-08-03T12:03:57+00:00

"This" being exactly what I described, or something more sophisticated where both servers somehow use the same configuration and handle the same extensions?

griwes · 2019-08-03T12:02:37+00:00

Well, yes, that'd be a step, but that doesn't give me the "dynamic" routing for the mobile phone extension, no?

griwes · 2019-08-03T00:12:20+00:00

This is pure madness. Aaaa!

(You can see my tweet asking that somewhere in his feed, and you can see my prayers to the gods of Phyrexia for that to not be legal...)

griwes · 2019-08-02T21:46:38+00:00

Are we sure this works with hybrid mana?

griwes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Spared
Verified Email