On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 9:59 AM Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I recall discussing this with other people at some point; not sure if
> there's already an existing proposal for it.
>
> I think it's well-motivated; we have function objects for std::plus/+
> and other sort of builtin things that you cannot (always) for a
> function pointer to, and this fits right in with those.
>
> However, std::construct is a bad name. You're basically making a
> callable type in the style of std::plus and std::less; all of those
> are named using a noun, presumably because they are not functions.
> std::construct sounds dangerously close to std::construct_at; there's
> some potential for confusion.
>
> Something like std::construction or std::constructor would be more
> fitting for that type.

On the bikeshedding point, `std::construct` sounds like it should be
related to `std::construct_at`, but it very much isn't. You're getting
a callable that represents the object's constructor, so
`std::constructor` fits right alongside `std::function` and
`std::mem_fn`.