Thank you for clarifying. I will not continue with the proposal.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 9:22 AM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 6:15 PM Aeren via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, this is one of the possible approaches. The other, which is
> probably what most competitive programmers would do, is just use twice as
> much memory by maintaining a parallel second `std::set` that's sorted on y
> instead of x. That way, you can just do lower_bound on the first set to
> answer queries of type Q2, and lower_bound on the second set to answer
> queries of type Q3.
> >
> >
> > If we also require that the element found in Q2 and Q3 must be deleted,
> this approach doesn't work anymore.
> >
> >> I think we need motivation outside of competitive programming in order
> to generate interest in standardization. I don't even mention competitive
> programming to WG21 because I know they'll just laugh at me.
> >
> >
> > This is my first time proposing and I don't know how things get decided
> on WG21 so please correct me if I'm missing something, but this statement
> sounds weird to me for the following reasons
> >
> > 1. In my initial proposal, I stated that my motivation is adding a
> counterpart to std::partition_point to BBST structures, just like
> std::lower_bound and std::upper_bound, and this doesn't really sound
> "competitive-programming-motivated" to me. This is motivated by the
> "completeness" of the standard library more than anything.
>
> But that's not your "motivation"; that's your *proposal*. You're just
> describing what you want changed.
>
> Good motivation is all about arguing that there is a problem,
> outlining the shape of that problem, and explaining why that problem
> needs a solution. Of particular value is being able to show that
> programmers frequently encounter this problem and that it inhibits
> their work in some way.
>
> > 2. The example I gave applies to any setting that can be abstracted into
> that form, and it looked general enough that whenever you're dealing with
> optimization over multivariate functions, I thought that this proposal can
> be very useful. I'm not sure how adding "competitive programming" changes
> anything. Would it be better if I instead wrote "I found this
> abstractization in my production code"?
>
> Did you?
>
> Changes to the standard should be motivated by a desire to help
> working programmers do their jobs better. They shouldn't be motivated
> by people playing around with the language. People can do that, but
> the language shouldn't change just to help them. As such, citing
> "competitive programming" examples is not a *convincing* way to get
> other people to think that this is a problem that needs solving.
>
> So if you really did find this to be useful in production code, then
> that would be more convincing of a motivation than citing competitive
> programming challenges.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>