I think a better analogy would be if you had a patient with a heart condition and someone comes along and suggest "transplanting the heart and replace it with a kidney, because it's an organ of about the same size and blood goes through it".

I think you would be understandably forgiven if the first question that comes to mind is not in "either who should use the mechanical heart or the dialysis machine to support the procedure".
I for one would have quite serious questions on their ability to practice medicine.

Still, one patiently explains that "a kidney is not a muscle and is incapable of pumping blood, and even if you could pull off that miracle it doesn't have a valve to make sure it goes in the right direction. According to what we know about anatomy this just wouldn't work".
This isn't helped by the response "well not according with our current understanding of anatomy, sometimes when you are to stuck in a specific way of thinking you are unable to think outside of the box. Besides everybody on average already has 2 kidneys, imagine how many lives we could save!"

But unlike medicine, we are not constrained by ethical concerns like not killing a patient.
I have given you a couple of metaphorical bodies that you can butcher to your hearts content. Anyone can just grab the source code of open source compilers and experiment to their hearts content.

I don't know of a way to do what you suggested without having the patient die on the operating table. But maybe you can, and maybe we are missing out on a world where one could use kidneys as a cheap heart replacement (even if the patient only needs some medicine).
I seriously doubt it. But you are free to try.

Keeping this discussion is not helpful, it could only lead to more people getting hangry, there's nothing anyone can say right now that will get each other seeing eye to eye.
If you think you are right, you have to prove to us that you are right, show us an implementation, and if you can't you will have learned something too. That's the only way.


________________________________
From: Marcin Jaczewski <marcinjaczewski86_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 12:08:58 PM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>; organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Function overload set type information loss

czw., 1 sie 2024 o 11:40 organicoman via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>
>
>
>> We are always coming back to the same things, and there's no progress being done.
>
> Yes indeed,
> Everyone is asking me about my understanding of the language, and no is asking about his understanding of the proposal.
>

I have good analogy, we have patient with heart disease, and some guy
come out and volunteered to make heart transplantation
that will cure this patient, it's natural to ask him if he knows
detailed human anatomy and has long expreciene with complex
operations before we even allow him to close the operation table.
Even more, is this transplantation even the correct way to cure this
person? Could applying some drugs would heal this patient?

>> Here's the thing, I don't think this would work, I have no idea on how to make this work. And I'm not the only one sharing this opinion.
>
> That's why i came here to discuss,
> I thought we will behave like a community and try to understand each other and help the proposal until we hit a wall or make it through.
> Unfortunately it is not the case.
>

Hard to accept diffrent outcome if you not answer hard questions
people ask you here and only avoid them or make surface level answers.

Besides, you claim your proposal is "mathematical" but first thing you
do is discard all precise definitions used by C++ standard,
this is not how mathematics works or even how it should work.