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.