> one obvious gap is that it doesn't seem to have a statement from the person removed after they were removed.
I think the article is written by the person that was removed. It is lacking any statement of the standard foundation who removed him. No such statement exists, even on the internal committee mailing list it is just an "fyi, that person is no longer on the committee" without any reasons.
I can piece something together from his previous behavior on the committee mailing list, but that information is not public and I'm not at liberty to share.
4. After noticing your lack of contributions to r/cpp, I decided you are just someone who causes moderation trouble without contributing useful technical insights, so I decided to ban you. That's why the above comment is listed in your ban reason. If you had posted the slur on an account with actual history in r/cpp and no previous removed comments, I would not have banned you.
Edit: 5. Reddit administrators have now removed your comment as well.
Hey, u/ss99ww. We did not go on a banning spree, we banned only one person, you. After removing the comment we're you insulted someone, I checked your history, noticed that you did not meaningfully participate in r/cpp outside this thread, and decided to remove someone from the community who'd only be there to cause trouble.
(And for the record, we barely removed any comments, just the ones that directly insulted people.)
Oh, that's just a side effect of the way the work is distributed :D I'm hired to maintain our core libraries and general C++ stuff, and I write most of the blog articles, so it's about the problems I face in my everday work.
We should blog more about the other stuff. For example, we've implemented a pretty cool lossless compression scheme for the preview of powerpoint slides in search, and have acquiried a cool technology to search for existing slides by drawing a sketch of their layout. But the people working on that are too busy to blog about them...
Post author here. To be fair, we specifically don't use std::ranges because of that "N Pythagorean triple" problem. We have our own custom library that is vastly superior to std::ranges. See e.g. here for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ntC-Y1syY
I was recently appointed co-chair for the std::ranges group and I'm trying to bring some of the improvements to C++.