> Some compiler needs to implement -Wunderbar

Hidden gem!

On a more serious note, the author of this little proposal (officializing "_" as a no name placeholder) had to perform a thorough research to show that this change would not break existing code.

This kind of attention is necessary for a language with broad scope and a long successful history such as C++, and would be for every other language with such characteristics.

While more modern languages benefit from the errors of the older ones, I do not think they will be exempt from this kind of responsible growth process when they will become decades old.

There is an interesting approach to this in Rust: if a potentially breaking change (e.g. a soundness fix) is being proposed, they usually test it against all publicly available Rust code.

I'm not sure that's the flex you think it might be.

At least, I interpret it as saying there isn't much publicly available Rust code, and only a few places to find Rust code.

I have a hard time even estimating how long it would take to test a change against all publicly available C++ code.

FWIW, the C++ standards developers use do use code search tools to help identify possible breakage.

Pretty sure from a build system perspective its quite a flex .. to be fair.

I understand the intent of the flex, but if true, it suggests there's very little public Rust outside of packages that can be downloaded from crates.io and a smallish list of alternatives.

By comparison, there's so much publicly available Python code, from so many sources, that no one can honestly say they can even find it all. The same for C++.

I've seen papers where the source code was included in the paper itself (eg, the FORTRAN code in Sibson's 1973 "SLINK" paper), or only distributed as a zip file from the author's web site, or in the supplementary data (eg, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22source+code+in+the+s... ) .

Personally, I don't think it's true. I suspect Rust changes - just like new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

> new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

Now that I have, so to say, shown you mine, lets see yours. Where is the tool to perform these checks in C++?