I get your point, but here is how I would write that paper:

Line 1: The C++ Committee is introducing Interceptors.
Line 2: Everyone applauds.

I don't think anyone would oppose adding such a practical feature; C++ developers have been waiting for this for too long. Don't let the bureaucracy of a "paper" dampen the urgency of the need. If Interceptors actually make it into the Standard, I believe everyone will applaud.


At 2026-04-17 12:46:34, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago@macieira.org> wrote:
>On Thursday, 16 April 2026 20:39:20 Pacific Daylight Time Zhao YunShan wrote:
>> Because Interceptors add a critical capability and make coding tasks -- such
>> as hooking, stubbing, tracing, and auto-locking -- sufficiently easier,
>> alongside other qualitative advantages. The problems Interceptor is solving
>> are sufficiently common.
>
>> Why did the US send astronauts to the Moon? Why is Musk sending humans to
>> Mars? Why does NASA launch so many satellites? These projects cost a
>> fortune, yet they bring little tangible economic benefit. So, were they
>> worth it? And you shouldn't be asking me this. You should ask the Java and
>> Python developers��ask them if Interceptors are worth it. Stop asking such
>> subjective questions to anyone, anywhere, anytime. It's completely
>> meaningless.
>
>I'm not asking this to annoy you. I am asking you this to make you think of 
>the answers, because you're going to have to write them in the paper that 
>justifies their inclusion in the Standard, along with the technical details of 
>how they work
>
>-- 
>Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
>  Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.