śr., 20 maj 2026 o 08:45 Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2026, 07:15 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals, <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 19, 2026, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I think we'd be better off with an attribute that tells the compiler exactly what we have in mind. And of course the attribute would ensure that the function is not emitted in the object file.
>>>
>>>
>>> You get that with consteval.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Inside the body of a consteval function, if you make a call to a non-constexpr function, you get a compiler warning.
>>
>> Also if you were to invoke 'optional::operator*' before invoking 'optional::has_value', you might get a warning (e.g. from cppcheck).
>>
>> To cut down on warnings, and to ensure that the function actually never gets invoked -- not even in a consteval context at compile time -- it would be better to tell the compiler (and also tell cppcheck) that the function is [[unevaluated]]. And if someone tries to take its address or invoke it, I would like this to be an error rather than a warning.
>
>
>
> You "forgot" to reply to the part where I asked for motivation. No change there then.
>

One question, did he even once answer a question like this?
And you expect this will be this time when he makes proposals that
have real motivation?

For some time I have not even read his post as they do not contribute
anything there,
only replies from people like you have some value here. But I start
doubting that all
the effort you put into trying to salvage any meaningful ideas from
this discussion is worth your time.

>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals