On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 1:11 PM 1one1 via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thanks to the members of the C++ community for their valuable insights and discussions that helped shape this proposal.

What proposal? This isn't a proposal, as it doesn't actually propose anything.

I mean yes, it says that there would be some attribute, but you don't
say what that attribute *means* or does or how it affects the
function. It says that there will be some "Enclave" class, but you
don't say what that class does and how it differs from `std::thread`
except to say that it has "hardware security".

The closest you get to an actual suggestion is:

> because the new executing context may immediately be used and reused after creation.

But there's no explanation of why that *matters*. Why does the
"executing context" need to be reused like this? I mean, this sounds
very much like something you could layer on top of `std::thread`. And
there's no indication that it has anything to do with "hardware
security".

I really don't see the point of feigning politeness by preemptively
thanking us while taking absolutely no time to formulate an even
partially formed C++ proposal. It isn't even a coherent idea, let
alone having any clearly identifiable motivation associated with it.