Weird how that should even be concern of the committee. Just give the
syntax and allow implementations to decide what can they implement as
`constexpr` or not.

Maybe only impose "minimal requirements" for what needs to be able to be
evaluated at compile time. Let's be honest C++ is turing complete so
everything can be `constexpr` in theory.

And also in my opinion "cherry-picking" what should be allowed as
`constexpr` next is doing work for the sake of work being done.

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 6:43 PM Barry Revzin via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:45 AM Federico Kircheis via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, implementors have reported that it would be very difficult to
>> > implement.
>> >
>>
>> Out of curiosity, was goto in constexpr evaluation proposed and rejected?
>>
>> Would like to know more about this statement.
>>
>
> Sort of, N4472. When it was discussed in 2015, the minutes mostly mention
> constexpr lambdas.. And there was a poll to add constexpr goto which was
> 11-5.
>
> Given that constexpr lambdas now exist, maybe that's worth revisiting?
>
> Barry
>
>> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>