It's highly dismissive of other people's field experience other than Gaspar's.

I have countless times faced and fixed this problem production code, I guarantee you Gaspar's is not special. I would be more than happy to fix it for a fee.
I think I have sufficient reasons to be skeptical.

If you have a problem, you either come up with a concrete example that we can all look at that isn't locked behind closed doors (and then we can agree, yes this is a problem, or maybe not, this isn't a problem you should have done this), or just admit you don't have an example to show.

________________________________
From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 8:36:34 AM
To: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>
Cc: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Revising #pragma once

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 09:26, Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Listening to feeble strawman argument attempts at insisting how the
> arguments against #pragma once are invalid, even though they
> demonstrably aren't?
>
> Please do elaborate on how abusing the build/filesystem where you end up with multiple conflicting definitions of what you mean when you say "include <X>" for the same translation unit isn't a self-inflicted wound?

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that there's some abuse
going on. I highly recommend that you go consult the people doing it,
swiftly fix their misunderstandings, and then report back with that
field experience how the problem was simple and easy to fix, and the
people
running into problems with #pragma once were dreadfully wrong all
along. Until you do that, I have two arguments to consider, one that
is
field experience feedback from actual projects in production, and the
other that is vague claims that those projects are just doing it
wrong.
The determination of relative plausibility is rather easy to make
given those arguments.