On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 1:50 PM Jens Maurer via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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?
>

If it's complex, it's *not* simple.
But yeah, WG21 in modern times cares little for implementation complexity
(witness all of Ranges; std::hive; gestures broadly in the direction of
Unicode).
And I agree that the implementation could at least *look* smaller in a new
revision. In fact a large part of it is basically reimplementing C++20
`cmp_less` <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/intcmp> but with the
arithmetic return value instead of just a `bool`.

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

I'd happily review new wording/implementation, but am not inclined to
author.

IIUC, the design intent is that this doesn't change any *existing* behavior
or signatures of min/max/minmax, but merely expands the range of
well-formed calls to include a lot of things that are ill-formed today?
    auto x = std::minmax(A(), A()); // same old behavior
    auto y = std::minmax(A(), B()); // today: ill-formed; tomorrow: shiny
new behavior
right?

–Arthur