> C++ is deprecating things over time (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support), for example some

> C++ is deprecating things over time (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support), for example some uses of the volatile keyword (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p115... http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p115...). The committee does a lot of work to keep the standard compatible with c++ as it is used and this proposal seems to be a good example of them trimming out dead and bloated parts, without negatively impacting existing code. The original proposal for that deprecation points out a lot of issues. Basically it boils down to the fact that many operations were badly specified, outright misleading, predate the c++ memory model or were artifacts of maintaining the parallel to const that volatile had in C at a large cost and without people actually using it, one example they could track down even noted how it did not behave the same way as primitives would.