On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 20:24, Florian Weimer <fw_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > The usual advice applies. To change this, we need a proposal with
> > well-thought-out rationale, with a strong recommendation that that
> > rationale should include an explanation why the points made in the
> > paper and in the aforementioned discussion are overshadowed by the
> > benefits of the change. And since it's an incompatible change to a
> > facility that's been there for two C++ standards very-soon, prepare
> > to make the rationale even more convincing.
>
> Are designated initializers part of C++17? Not sure if I understand
> your “two standards” comment.

Oops, right, it didn't make it into C++17, it was one of the first
things approved for C++20.

> > Oh, would it be possible to lift the ordering requirement? Maybe. My
> > guesstimate is that that's an uphill battle.
> The goal was to increase C compatibility, but according to my
> (admittedly limited) results, this was not really achieved.

Well, it was a conscious decision to increase compatibility in a
limited fashion,
rather than make the languages completely compatible.