On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:03 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Il 29/10/20 16:33, Arthur O'Dwyer ha scritto:
>
> In your particular case of {x,y}, I'm also ambivalent. Influential people
> like Nevin Liber (P1163
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1163r0.pdf>)
> have expressed strong aversion to HORSE, so, to a first approximation,
> HORSE will never happen. Also, people today are physically prevented from
> doing CART. Your proposal proposes to permit people to do CART, knowing
> that HORSE will never happen.
> So there are (at least) two possible positions: Nicol's "I don't want CART
> without HORSE" and my "well, we obviously can't get HORSE *before* CART,
> so we might as well get CART and see if that helps the HORSE to follow."
>
> I am not personally making any prediction whatsoever on whether we will
> ever get HORSE or not; I do not have any secret agenda! :) If this kind of
> proposals are useful to spur old discussions, by all means, let's have
> them. (But in another thread :-P. By the way, P1163 got rejected).
>
Whoops, I was mixing that paper up with the similar
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2193
which *did* get done, but that was specifically to make *containers*
initializable from *empty* braces `{}` https://godbolt.org/z/86K9WW
and did not extend to non-container types (e.g. `ifstream`) or even to
non-default constructors.

I definitely do not believe that improving this CART is going to increase
> the adoption of "wrong" usages so much that this will effectively block any
> future tentative of fixing the HORSE.
>
I tend to agree.

–Arthur

>