On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 at 06:07, Walt Karas <wkaras_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> It seems to me that the proper way to frame the argument is: what are the
> reasons for prohibiting those who want to from using this proposal to
> reduce repetition?


That's not the ideal way to frame any proposal to change the C++ standard.
The burden of evidence that something is useful and should be in the
standard is on the paper author; it's not the job of the committee to prove
that your feature should not be included.

And while you can reduce repetition with this feature, the question is at
what cost that comes. There is always a cost, just like there is a cost to
writing "int *x, &y;" instead of "int *x; int &y;". Most people would write
the latter, even if it means they're repeating the "int" keyword. I have
listed some of those costs of your idea previously, like feeling compelled
to put things into sections when it's unnatural.