I was about to write this message in a different form, basically accusing the committee of unethical practices and fulfilling third party interests for personal gain while purposely slowing down development progress - but mid writing that I realised I don't want to be sued.

In any case even if I did write the above it would have been solely for the expected reactions and not in any shape of form for the purpose of diminishing this organisation's credibility. Thus I must also disclaim that such potential message (which I also didn't write as mentioned in the first paragraph) doesn't lay down on any actual evidence and is purely for entertainment purposes only.

Additionally I hope that such entertainment value is appreciated by this email group subscribers and not taken as offense or off-topic.

Anyway with that I'm out.

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:08 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On 24/05/2023 18:00, sasho648 via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Weird how that should even be concern of the committee. Just give the
> syntax and allow implementations to decide what can they implement as
> `constexpr` or not.

This just calls for... gratuitous implementation divergence?

My 2 c,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals