On 06/03/2025 18.56, Howard Hinnant via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2025, at 6:50 AM, Jens Maurer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2025 12.18, Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>>

>>> See https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2199.html <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2199.html> which was rejected long ago.
>>
>> Maybe it's time to reconsider, after 15+ years.
>>
>> If we can't change the existing interface, we could at least
>> offer replacements under a different name. Unfortunately,
>> std::ranges::min/max is already taken, with a proliferation
>> of the existing interface.

> I was in the room when it was rejected. The reason it was rejected was not because the proposed behavior was not desired. It was rejected because the *implementation* was considered too complicated. The committee found the *implementaiton* to be complicated to the point of embarrassment to the langauge.

What? Since when is the committee bothered with implementation complexity
of a fairly simple library feature?

We should have this ASAP, with a modern implementation. Any takers?

> Indeed, there have been so many improvements in both the library and the language in the past 15 years that the implementation of https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2199.html <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2199.html> would I’m sure be greatly simplified today.

Absolutely.
Using "if constexpr", you can probably show a single function body these days.

Jens