On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 7:12 PM organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I guess, i get what is the problem.
> People are reading the proposal and try to box it inside the current implementation of C++.

I find it interesting that this is your response when someone points
out that you made an elementary error in your defense of your
proposal. Not admission that you were wrong or made a mistake.You
instead pivot to "you're just too hidebound to understand how
brilliant my proposal really is, man!"

This is not how a reasoned discussion works. It's certainly not how
you get changes made to C++.

> Free your minds guys,
> Read it without any pre setup thoughts, or pretend it works somehow (like Tiago did in the beginning)
> Try to use it in on some examples, it you find contradiction, or you can't generate code, then report it. That's all.

That's not how proposals are considered, nor should it be. It's up to
you to make a case *for* the functionality you want. It's not on us to
assume the proposal makes sense; you have to *make it* make sense.

And it would really help if you could demonstrate some knowledge of
the thing you're trying to change. Your frequent misuse of
terminology, not to mention that nonsense about two functions of the
same signature having to produce the same mapping, doesn't really
inspire confidence that you have any idea what you're talking about.