On Thursday, 16 April 2026 22:36:37 Pacific Daylight Time Zhao YunShan wrote:
> I don't think anyone would oppose adding such a practical feature; C++
> developers have been waiting for this for too long. Don't let the
> bureaucracy of a "paper" dampen the urgency of the need. If Interceptors
> actually make it into the Standard, I believe everyone will applaud.

The problem is not *opposition* to the feature. There is no presumption of
acceptance of a new feature. Each one must justify itself. There's no way
around writing a technical paper explaining the motivation, the feature, the
alternatives, and the technical language, then defending it.

If you don't do that or find someone to do it for you, it will not be added to
the Standard.

The point of this is not to make it a bureaucracy. The point is to make you
and the committee think of the advantages and disadvantages of the feature.
And I can tell you have not thought of all the limitations that apply, because
you have consistently dismissed them when pointed out. The exercise is
supposed to help you write a better feature that has fewer limitations and
helps improve the language further than your first idea would have.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.