[ender341341]

The compiler writers have had a ton of issues implementing modules and aren't particularly excited for them (the committee seems to have forgot the lessens learned from c++98 and not having full implementations for crazy hard things)

on the other hand constexpr changes tend to be picked up pretty quickly, and a lot of them tend to be things that the compiler/stl authors themselves are asking for.

[pjmlp]

Since C++14 that I have increasingly changed my mind that it should only be about existing practice, and no paper should be accepted without implementation, regardless of how basic it may be, just like in other language ecosystems.

Yes it might prevent lots of cool features, yet how good are they if it takes years to be implemented across compilers, or they turn out to be yet another export template.

Additionally it would help to reduce count from those 300+ people, not everyone is there for good reasons, some only want to have a "contributed to C++" on their background, and then they are gone.

[ender341341]

> should only be about existing practice, and no paper should be accepted without implementation

When c++11 was still c++0x they made a big song and dance about how they wouldn't do another export template boondoggle and wanted an implementation available for any features. Then they seemed to have completely forget about it when doing modules (which not that surprisingly is running into similar issues that export templates did).