I know there's recently been some movement towards standardizing something in this direction, but I don't know what the status of that work is. Probably one of the folks doing the AUA can update.
The generic heterogeneous operations also avoid the identifier blowup. The only real argument against them that I see is that they are not easily implementable in C itself, but that's nothing new for the standard library (and should be a non-goal, in my not-a-committee-member opinion).
Obviously, I'm not privy to the committee discussions around this, so there may be good reasons for the choice, but it worries me a lot to see that document.
Hi Stephen, thank you for bringing this to our attention. David Svoboda and I are now working to revise the proposal to add a supplemental proposal to support operations on heterogeneous types. We are leaning toward proposing a three-argument syntax, where the 3rd argument specifies the return type, like:
ckd_add(a, b, T)
ckd_add(a, b)
>once you have the heterogeneous operations, is there any reason to keep the others around
The two-argument form is shorter, but perhaps that isn't a strong enough reason to keep it. Also, requiring a redundant 3rd argument can provide an opportunity for mistakes to happen if it gets out of sync with the type of first two arguments.
As for the non-generic functions (e.g., ckd_int_add, ckd_ulong_add, etc.), we are considering removing them in favor of having only the generic function-like macros.