I strongly disagree with your perception of the poll.

I think Anton's paper is much more solid, it doesn't introduce any new syntax or functions. It achieves all of the goals by just providing guarantees on what had previously been optional and inconsistent.

While this seems a hacky adhoc solution, makes writing code much more convoluted, and requires an unstated magic solution (a subset of Anton's solution) in order to even be implementable.

I rather wait for C++29 than to have this, even if I have to champion it myself.
Anton's paper actually solves the problem at the root cause and is the simplest solution you could possibly have (which in my book is always better).

You may disagree with my observation, but I disagree with yours, and I'm of the felling that I'm not the only one sharing this opinion.
________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2024 9:53:37 AM
To: std-proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Stop gap required for NRVO until Anton's paper is assimilated



On Saturday, July 20, 2024, Jens Maurer wrote:

If everybody believes P2025 is the right approach, then I'm strongly
opposed to any intermediate "stop gap", which won't go away again
even if the right approach comes along in a few years.


Polls show that it hasn't got much approval.