On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:05 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't think the degree to which I personally participated in anything is
of interest to anyone - my statement is based on the official minutes of
the meeting where requiring auto was suggested and voted on. Perhaps "last
minute" is inaccurate, I withdraw that part. And of course it being
"nonsense" and "bad syntax" are both in my subjective opinion. No, I don't
have hard evidence that the majority feel the same way, it's just an
impression.


> > 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.
>