Go for it. You're not the first to try. In either case this mailing
list is still not the right place for that discussion. "This group is
for discussion about proposed extensions to the ISO C++ language and
standard library.". By definition, you're talking about something
that isn't the ISO C++ language or library.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 9:56 AM organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Anything i touch for proposal imposes an ABI break.
> I'm think about starting a brand new C++ from scratch, as a true successor of the actual C++.
> How bad is that?
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andre Kostur <andre_at_[hidden]>
> Date: 11/22/25 6:42 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]
> Cc: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++
>
> This isn't the right place to have that discussion. What is _your_
> proposal to fix one or more things that you perceive as an issue?
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 9:32 AM organicoman via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm interested to hear the community opinions, and reactions. It tells a lot about the language future.
> >
> > In the video he mention this example
> >
> > [[no_discard]] constexpr inline auto foo(params...) noexcept -> Ret;
> >
> > If we had to redesign the language, what should be the default and what should be opt-in/opt-out?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Galaxy
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
> > Date: 11/22/25 5:55 PM (GMT+01:00)
> > To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]
> > Cc: Jason McKesson <jmckesson_at_[hidden]>
> > Subject: Re: [std-proposals] The most fair rant on C++
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 3:58 AM organicoman via Std-Proposals
> > <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are right, he does cherry pick many things, but that because we are experts and we can spot them.
> > > But Is it the same for new comers?
> >
> > You're ignoring the actual issue here. Namely, that the video does not
> > contain good-faith criticisms. Cherry picking is a tactic that is
> > meant to hide the actual validity of the criticism. Doing it means
> > that you're deliberately showing the problem in the worst possible
> > light while wallpapering over counter-evidence.
> >
> > This is not something you do if you're trying to have a serious
> > conversation about serious problems. It's manipulative by its very
> > nature. If it raises legitimate points, it's only by accident.
> >
> > Also, it's AI generated. So not only were the contents prima facie
> > manipulative, the bad-faith actor couldn't even be bothered to write
> > the bad faith criticisms themselves.
> >
> > Put simply, this video should not be used as evidence for anything.
> > Bringing it up here is just a waste of everyone's time. It's about as
> > useful as saying "C++ SUX JK LOL!"
> > --
> > Std-Proposals mailing list
> > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
> > --
> > Std-Proposals mailing list
> > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals