On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:33 PM Hani Deek via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
> The answers to your questions depend on what we are discussing. If we are discussing an alternative syntax to the non-static member functions, then the answers to your questions are self-evident. There is no need for me to answer them. The same rules that currently govern the non-static member functions will continue to govern them in C++23, regardless of what syntax we use to write those functions.
>
> If the topic that we are discussing is the new kind of functions that is proposed in P0847, which is different from the non-static member functions of C++20, then I really don't want to be part of this discussion. The whole reason I started this discussion is because I don't support adding that new kind of functions to C++. It does not matter to me what rules you will make for those new functions. I have no opinion on that issue.

But you do have an opinion on the issue: you want the feature
*changed*. You can't just talk about the way you think it should work
without also discussing "it" itself. You don't get to unilaterally
decide what the only thing you want to talk about is when what you
want to talk about is fundamentally inextricable from what you *don't*
want to talk about.

I mean, you *can* do that; that's what you're trying to do right now,
after all. But it's not going to be a productive conversation, because
everyone else is going to keep asking "why should we give up these
features", and you will keep refusing to engage on that. You will come
off as rather unconvincing, and therefore fail to achieve your goal.
If you want to be convincing, you need to engage on the points people
are making.