On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 9:59 AM Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals

<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

I recall discussing this with other people at some point; not sure if

there's already an existing proposal for it.

I think it's well-motivated; we have function objects for std::plus/+

and other sort of builtin things that you cannot (always) for a

function pointer to, and this fits right in with those.

However, std::construct is a bad name. You're basically making a

callable type in the style of std::plus and std::less; all of those

are named using a noun, presumably because they are not functions.

std::construct sounds dangerously close to std::construct_at; there's

some potential for confusion.

Something like std::construction or std::constructor would be more

fitting for that type.

On the bikeshedding point,

 `std::construct` sounds like it should be

related to `std::construct_at`, but it very much isn't.

 You're getting

a callable that represents the object's constructor, so

`std::constructor` fits right alongside `std::function` and

`std::mem_fn`.