On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jens Gustedt via Liaison <
liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hubert,
>
> on Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:27:28 -0400 you (Hubert Tong
> <hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]>) wrote:
>
> > > The fourth is, that the `default` case needs a template, which we
> > > obviously don't have in C and which we will probably never have, for
> > > the same reasons.
> > >
> > Envisioning generic as a group of overloads is interesting. With C++,
> > we now have abbreviated function templates, so even the non-default
> > cases can be templates somewhat directly.
>
> Probably yet another thing that I'd have to learn about C++.
>
> > The observation that C++
> > could use something like generic was the subject of a previous paper:
> > https://wg21.link/p0404.
>
> Very interesting, indeed, thanks for the link.
>
> (Though I am not able to comprehend all of this, my C++ is probably
> much too basic.)
>
> So, from the date on that paper I guess you didn't find enough support
> for this?
>

It was presented in the 2016 Issaquah meeting.

The straw poll to encourage more work was positive:
5 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 0