On 22/08/2024 17.24, Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals wrote:
> To remove the #pragma once precedence, the __COUNTER__ proposal could instead also standardize #pragma once and other similar quasi-standards.

What? No feature creep for this paper, please.

Jens

>
>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>     *Von:*    Arthur O‘Dwyer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
>     *Gesendet:*       Do 22.08.2024 17:19
>      
>     I'm ambivalent on the proposal. It is obviously standardizing useful existing practice. /But/ the very ubiquity of __COUNTER__ means that its standardization won't help anyone.
>     One way to (politically) motivate an existing-practice proposal is to go find some implementation divergence, and claim that your proposal would resolve that divergence, thus improving the user's life. But if there is no divergence — or if your proposal fails to resolve what divergence exists — then you haven't got a case.
>     An example of this scenario is `#pragma once`. Literally every vendor supports `#pragma once`; but it's never been standardized, because the cost of standardization is high and the benefit would be literally zero: /nobody/ is prevented from using `#pragma once` just because it's non-standard.
>     The cost of standardizing `__COUNTER__` is much lower (because the spec is very simple), but the benefit is still literally zero.
>
>

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals