The goal here is to extend the language, on its architectural scale, to fix somehow these long lasting issues in C++. No matter how long it can take, they have to be fixed.
Your goal is not really relevant at this point. The mechanism you are
proposing is one that is, by definition, outside of the language.
The C++ standard does not define a "compiler", "architecture",
tool-set or anything like that. It defines what the language means.
How that gets processed into an executable is not what the standard
defines.
The committee can issue guidance about how implementers should go
about writing implementations. But that's not part of the language
standard. What you want is an extra-language tool. That is simply not
in the purview of the standard.
Ok so by "definition" there is no hope of extending the C++
language itself other than creating a new variant. Ok thanks I
understand.
Le message ci-dessus,
ainsi que les documents l'accompagnant, sont destinés
uniquement aux personnes identifiées et peuvent contenir
des informations privilégiées, confidentielles ou ne
pouvant être divulguées. Si vous avez reçu ce message par
erreur, veuillez le détruire.