> Numerous instances of wording in the article strongly suggest that the authors seem to be working under the confusion that ISO C++ is a compiler project, rath

> Numerous instances of wording in the article strongly suggest that the authors seem to be working under the confusion that ISO C++ is a compiler project, rather than a language specification. There is no possibility that any of the authors are working under this confusion. The language specification heavily influences compiler projects because compiler authors tend to target standards. The argument that authors can just write their own non-standard compiler doesn't generally carry much water. Moreover it is extremely common for the standard to be written specifically to assist compiler authors. Consider the numerous instances of undefined or implementation defined behavior. > If so, that is an unacceptable position for people on an ISO committee for that programming language. The purpose of a standards committee is to standardize, not to standardize anything in particular. If the committee can be persuaded that these use cases are important to a large body of C++ programmers and that the alternative may be a split in the community, the committee may be inclined to adopt some of these topics as areas for improvement.