On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 14:32, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> They added this auto nonsense at the last minute

The slight problem with that claim is that it's incorrect; the
constrained-deduced syntax wasn't added at the last minute.
The other problem is that while you're entitled to calling whatever
you like nonsense, there are significant technical
advantages to the approach we ended up choosing (Nota Bene: this "we"
excludes the author of the email I'm responding
to, as he wasn't a participant in any of it, so feel free to take his
reports on what happened and why with a modicum
of suspicion, as it's not based on first-hand experience), so there
are plausible reasons to think that it's far from nonsense.

> Most think that's silly and not worth fouling up the syntax

The slight problem with this claim is that it has no evidence backing it.

> but we needed the votes of that minority to get it through.

Yes, well, we need consensus for all proposals, so this was hardly any
special exception.

> It's possible that consensus can be obtained to overturn that design decision now that more people have gotten the chance to actually use concepts in the field. (Although it's possible people are getting used to the bad syntax, too.)

Yes, both of those things are indeed possible. The proposal here isn't
seeking to overturn that decision, though.