Replying to @chandlerc1024
I like "unformed" here -- seems close to minimum requirements of "partially formed". I don't see rationale for requiring support for multiple destructions, though. Won't that often require users branching in destructors when not vacuous? Is rationale for that aspect up anywhere?

Apr 8, 2024 · 7:58 PM UTC

2
1
Replying to @CppSage
The specific goal is to represent the large body of types which have a viable idempotent state for destructors. As for how multiple destruction comes up, some of it may be in the proposal. My memory is that it is only about reducing cost -- specifically dynamic tracking.
Ah, I see the proposal in the references.