On Monday, June 29th, 2026 at 10:50 AM, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 7:10 AM Matt Borland via Paper-reviews <paper-reviews@lists.wg21.org> wrote:
It looks like after many years of research and development they've arrived back at a similar problem in a narrower form. I think it's less they rediscovered the problem and more their hypothesis failed, which in research is completely ok.
Right, and P4286, which is an information-only paper, shows this does it not?
Rediscover means that the information was lost and then found again. The S/R authors clearly knew about this information since they wrote about it. I would say that it's not rediscovery and should be framed more as convergence.
What argument do you think the paper makes? And what issue do you think it identifies?
The paper's argument is the rediscovery of the shape of the executor in the form of infallible scheduler from S/R. The core issue is that the networking TS was blocked over the same problem. Matt