Others in this thread brought up several valid points. A few that I want to emphasize are:

1. Why were the previous proposals abandoned? Why do those same reasons not apply now? What has changed?
2. Architecture dependence. Yes, we can make it implementors’ problem, but if many fail to provide efficient implementations ––since these are likely less common compared to other hardware-dependent functions––then people won’t use them. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why previous proposals were abandoned?
3. This is really a C thing. There is nothing in this that C++ can do better than C. If standardized in C, it will have a wider user base too, and can be imported to C++ naturally.

On May 30, 2025, at 12:25, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

On Friday, 30 May 2025 12:26:43 Brasilia Standard Time Jan Schultke wrote:

Similarly, we don't require that users exhaustively learn every
function in <cmath>. You're perfectly able to use std::sqrt without
having learned the purpose of std::riemann_zeta, and you're unlikely
to confuse the two.

No, but you should note the presence of std::csqrt and sqrtf and understand
how they are not what you want.

--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
 Principal Engineer - Intel Platform & System Engineering



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