On 20/07/2024 09.53, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I'm not seeing this.

"We are interested in pursuing work on guaranteed copy elision for named return objects."

had unanimous consensus; people just felt the approach in the
then-current paper wasn't exactly the right one.

> P3357 can have two separate marketing campaigns.

This is not a place for marketing campaigns, but for discussions
on technical merit.

> For the people who really want P2025, I'm happy to market P3357 as a stop gap which will become deprecated at some point in the future.

Right, and that's where I'm strongly opposed to P3357. We don't need
a feature that's deprecated soon after arrival. Solve the problem
properly and once and for all. That's why it took a while for
reflection to arrive, but now it's (almost) there, and we rightfully
rejected attempts at solving small chunks of the problem space
(e.g. stringification of enumerators).

Jens