On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 18:57:55 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 16:22:46 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The decision was primarily influenced by the lack of consensus
over the implementation and the syntax demonstrated in the two
review threads.
That's not true, we had consensus minus one - the community
rallied around just one small tweak to the proposal.
I don't think that the proposed change was one small tweak. Even
if it were, the DIP that just got rejected didn't have it.
There's also the practical question of template instantiations
and compile times even if the DIP that was being discussed were
to be modified in the way suggested.
Would you have preferred the DIP were accepted "as-was"?
