I agree. He made a point that, if I understood I agree with, that constexpr is not necessarily as strict as it should be. Specifically that you only need ONE pa

I agree. He made a point that, if I understood I agree with, that constexpr is not necessarily as strict as it should be. Specifically that you only need ONE path to work at compile time to be able to be constexpr. I might be missing a reason this is a good idea but at least to me it seems bizarre. It would 100% be nice if code could be tagged by context in more ways than constexpr so the compiler can better tell you things like "put this behind an ifdef for Linux" etc (maybe with a compiler option to say this will only ever target one context and you don't need to check for that).