Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 07:43:36 +0500
Hi!
1. Even if it wasn't(and I was wrong), there are many more
examples(spaceship operator, constexpr if statements, consteval, the list
is too big to list all in the open). The point isn't that I am perfect but
rather that my proposal is right.
2. I said what I said because Bjarne Strourstrup in his book (C++
programming 4th edition, page 675, Section 23.3.2 ) " That point is called
the first point of instantiation (ยง26.3.3). The implementation is allowed
to postpone essentially all checking until the program is linked, and for
some errors link time is also the earliest point when complete checking is
possible. Independently of when checking is done, the same set of rules is
checked. ", but maybe I was wrong.
3. I am really really really sorry for sending too many emails.
4. In the real world(I know you know more (intel goated) than me but let
me clarify), you dont have constant, in real world, the index can be real
time, infact, for anything constant, tuples work even for
heterogeneous sets. I dont know how you get a constant but if your input is
coming a real time source then in my opinion it is impossible to make it be
constant.
5. I used the cpu profiling of visual studio 2022
Time taken for looping 100000000000 times over a line that adds into a
volatile x from a index in obj read by std::cin:
17-20s switch 2 minutes 20s for visit, 11 for ternary statements, 20 for
subscript.
CPU(termed as processer usage in visual studio) usage (in percetager):
[4-12] percent for switch.
[8- 20] for std::visit
[4-9] percent for ternary.
[4-12] for subscripting.
6. I updated my proposal so I highly suggest that you ask AI to summarize
the thing or read it if you will.
7. I used the cpu profiling of visual studio 2022
Time taken for looping 100000000000 times over a line that adds into a
volatile x from a index in obj read by std::cin:
17-20s switch 2 minutes 20s for visit, 11 for ternary statements, 20 for
subscript.
CPU(termed as processer usage in visual studio) usage (in percetager):
[4-12] percent for switch.
[8- 20] for std::visit
[4-9] percent for ternary.
[4-12] for subscripting.
8. The point on optimization dosent just apply on making subscripting into
heterogeneous lists like existing indexing, but to rather make a
syntactic construct that makes certain semantic promises(that I hope you
guys propose) which would help the compiler optimize it for the specific
cases where we want a balance between code bloat and runtime performance
(ie, we dont know which one to use swtich case or std::visit). Adding
semantical "promises" to constructs make constructs powerful than raw
assembly. Recall spaceship operators and the fact that they have semantic
promises(through the return type) that make the compiler know what it can
expect better, and leads to less verbose code than having to define every
comparison opreator's default function.
9. I do read assembly, but in most real world examples, the assembly can
vary widely so you cant depend on the assembly code to know if your aproach
works or not. I showed you the benchmarks, you said that they can lie, so
can assembly then, like compilers have potential layers of translation
inside each phase, which coupled with unspecified behaviour can mean that
assembly can lie.
10. My main goal is to get someone to vouch for my proposal and add more
semantical requirements, not to defend whether templates can be
instantiated or not.
11. The reason why I made std::visit static (in my benchmarks yesterday
and in the benchmarks on the latest proposal on my github:
https://github.com/HjaldrKhilji/Future-potential-ISO-porposals/blob/main/Extension%20to%20runtime%20polymorphism.txt)
was because the variables that the switch and ternary returned were also
global variables, so I was trying to level the field by making the
variables global, variant static (but return literals).
12.The code that you might find fair, but I find too much in favor of
std::visit, but std::visit still loses:https://godbolt.org/z/aP488n1cj,
benchmarks dont change accoridng to visual studio profiler.
13. I used std::variant to show that just in case someone asks me to use
proxies or a type erasure system like using references in std:variant or
using virtual functions, the performance would be bad and the code would
still be verbose, leaving only to the verbose switch/if/ternary statements.
14. The microbench is exactly what I am trying to prove that a new
syntactic construct won't just help with a few nanoseconds, but help with
many cases of the same thing to work better in conjunction with the rest of
the project.
15. The reason that I didn't make the fact that (according to you) the
switch statement had the outer loop optimized to 3 loops does dont branch
is because that argument is pointless, my point isn't that why switch
statements are better, but rather on why my solution is better, and this
benchmark was to show that std::visit and polymorphism does not address all
problems that manual branching has (code bloat (potentially) causing worse
performance than redirection (huge respect and credit to adrian for making
me remember this point)).
16. Again, if I paste a whole large example, I wouldn't convey my point
which is that we need something to convey intent better when subscripting
heterogeneous sets.
std::visit fails, and switch case statements backfire because of potential
code bloat. The benchmark was to show that the compiler can optimize
performance for smaller projects where It knows that it can be faster in
one specific case, a new construct would help the compiler know what the
goal of using that construct is, so that it can make it faster (if it can)
or even make it slower if it helps the rest of the project. Again, the
construct wont make a small example fast, but rather a whole ton of. The
reason that I didn't show a real world example for switch statements is
that I am not arguing for switch statements to be used everywhere, but
rather the opposite.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 6:31 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 April 2026 12:32:34 Pacific Daylight Time Muneem via Std-
> Proposals wrote:
> > It's different for templates because the linker has to plug in some type,
>
> No. There is no linker in template expansion.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
1. Even if it wasn't(and I was wrong), there are many more
examples(spaceship operator, constexpr if statements, consteval, the list
is too big to list all in the open). The point isn't that I am perfect but
rather that my proposal is right.
2. I said what I said because Bjarne Strourstrup in his book (C++
programming 4th edition, page 675, Section 23.3.2 ) " That point is called
the first point of instantiation (ยง26.3.3). The implementation is allowed
to postpone essentially all checking until the program is linked, and for
some errors link time is also the earliest point when complete checking is
possible. Independently of when checking is done, the same set of rules is
checked. ", but maybe I was wrong.
3. I am really really really sorry for sending too many emails.
4. In the real world(I know you know more (intel goated) than me but let
me clarify), you dont have constant, in real world, the index can be real
time, infact, for anything constant, tuples work even for
heterogeneous sets. I dont know how you get a constant but if your input is
coming a real time source then in my opinion it is impossible to make it be
constant.
5. I used the cpu profiling of visual studio 2022
Time taken for looping 100000000000 times over a line that adds into a
volatile x from a index in obj read by std::cin:
17-20s switch 2 minutes 20s for visit, 11 for ternary statements, 20 for
subscript.
CPU(termed as processer usage in visual studio) usage (in percetager):
[4-12] percent for switch.
[8- 20] for std::visit
[4-9] percent for ternary.
[4-12] for subscripting.
6. I updated my proposal so I highly suggest that you ask AI to summarize
the thing or read it if you will.
7. I used the cpu profiling of visual studio 2022
Time taken for looping 100000000000 times over a line that adds into a
volatile x from a index in obj read by std::cin:
17-20s switch 2 minutes 20s for visit, 11 for ternary statements, 20 for
subscript.
CPU(termed as processer usage in visual studio) usage (in percetager):
[4-12] percent for switch.
[8- 20] for std::visit
[4-9] percent for ternary.
[4-12] for subscripting.
8. The point on optimization dosent just apply on making subscripting into
heterogeneous lists like existing indexing, but to rather make a
syntactic construct that makes certain semantic promises(that I hope you
guys propose) which would help the compiler optimize it for the specific
cases where we want a balance between code bloat and runtime performance
(ie, we dont know which one to use swtich case or std::visit). Adding
semantical "promises" to constructs make constructs powerful than raw
assembly. Recall spaceship operators and the fact that they have semantic
promises(through the return type) that make the compiler know what it can
expect better, and leads to less verbose code than having to define every
comparison opreator's default function.
9. I do read assembly, but in most real world examples, the assembly can
vary widely so you cant depend on the assembly code to know if your aproach
works or not. I showed you the benchmarks, you said that they can lie, so
can assembly then, like compilers have potential layers of translation
inside each phase, which coupled with unspecified behaviour can mean that
assembly can lie.
10. My main goal is to get someone to vouch for my proposal and add more
semantical requirements, not to defend whether templates can be
instantiated or not.
11. The reason why I made std::visit static (in my benchmarks yesterday
and in the benchmarks on the latest proposal on my github:
https://github.com/HjaldrKhilji/Future-potential-ISO-porposals/blob/main/Extension%20to%20runtime%20polymorphism.txt)
was because the variables that the switch and ternary returned were also
global variables, so I was trying to level the field by making the
variables global, variant static (but return literals).
12.The code that you might find fair, but I find too much in favor of
std::visit, but std::visit still loses:https://godbolt.org/z/aP488n1cj,
benchmarks dont change accoridng to visual studio profiler.
13. I used std::variant to show that just in case someone asks me to use
proxies or a type erasure system like using references in std:variant or
using virtual functions, the performance would be bad and the code would
still be verbose, leaving only to the verbose switch/if/ternary statements.
14. The microbench is exactly what I am trying to prove that a new
syntactic construct won't just help with a few nanoseconds, but help with
many cases of the same thing to work better in conjunction with the rest of
the project.
15. The reason that I didn't make the fact that (according to you) the
switch statement had the outer loop optimized to 3 loops does dont branch
is because that argument is pointless, my point isn't that why switch
statements are better, but rather on why my solution is better, and this
benchmark was to show that std::visit and polymorphism does not address all
problems that manual branching has (code bloat (potentially) causing worse
performance than redirection (huge respect and credit to adrian for making
me remember this point)).
16. Again, if I paste a whole large example, I wouldn't convey my point
which is that we need something to convey intent better when subscripting
heterogeneous sets.
std::visit fails, and switch case statements backfire because of potential
code bloat. The benchmark was to show that the compiler can optimize
performance for smaller projects where It knows that it can be faster in
one specific case, a new construct would help the compiler know what the
goal of using that construct is, so that it can make it faster (if it can)
or even make it slower if it helps the rest of the project. Again, the
construct wont make a small example fast, but rather a whole ton of. The
reason that I didn't show a real world example for switch statements is
that I am not arguing for switch statements to be used everywhere, but
rather the opposite.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 6:31 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 April 2026 12:32:34 Pacific Daylight Time Muneem via Std-
> Proposals wrote:
> > It's different for templates because the linker has to plug in some type,
>
> No. There is no linker in template expansion.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
Received on 2026-04-03 02:43:52