I don't think that is what the article is arguing for. There it would be more akin to "absolutely limited to" as they don't want anything outside of the examples. Unfortunately for them the examples are still open enough to allow for what compilers do (things like remove code that the author intended be left in).

Personally I'm OK with the more aggressive optimisations, but they are still very controversial -- I think more so in the C than the C++ community (I'm in the C++ one).