> because honestly I don't want to track down 25-year-old documents to figure out what's going on here
When it was written these weren't 25 year old. So this seems like a poor rationale. The answer is that they should just have written that it's ill-formed and they didn't. That's a completely understandable mistake, but it's telling that it wasn't fixed for so long people grew up, had kids, and the kids are writing the proposal to fix it. As to the idea of multiple "kinds" of UB, the standard defines this term exactly once.
There are a few things that I expect to see from Bjarne, Herb and WG21 generally that will mean they've finally figured out the true nature of the problem. When / if I see those things they may begin work to get C++ to where it'd need to be to stay relevant - not "relevant" the way COBOL is relevant, but relevant the way C++ still is in 2023. Meanwhile they're gliding, losing momentum.
Firstly, and the biggest hurdle, that the problem is Cultural. Yes Rust has some nicer technology, that's not enough, the technology supports a Culture, you could build C++'s culture with Rust's technology but that's worse, so, don't waste your time doing that.
Next though, most important of the technical insights and unwelcome if you spent your life on the C++ language, there are two choices of what to do about Rice's Theorem and C++ chose wrong, it will need to fix that, and the fix isn't cheap because it's a broad change to the entire language standard. If you have no stomach for that fix, it's likely actually better to announce that unsafety is your intent, and wrestle with the consequences as they are than to pretend you don't need the fix to get safety which is false.
What I mean here is, suppose I wrote a program which I say is safe, but the compiler can't see why it's safe. In Rust that's simple, the program doesn't compile. In C++ though the program compiles, and, if I'm correct, it's safe, but, if I'm wrong it has Undefined Behaviour (actually it's a bit worse, but that'll do in context). Henry Rice showed that we have no choice in these rich high level languages (which want non-trivial semantic properties of software), such programs will definitely exist, C++ allows this to happen a lot and Rust works hard to avoid that where possible, because in C++ the consequence is it compiles anyway and in Rust the consequence is it won't compile so that's undesirable.
When it was written these weren't 25 year old. So this seems like a poor rationale. The answer is that they should just have written that it's ill-formed and they didn't. That's a completely understandable mistake, but it's telling that it wasn't fixed for so long people grew up, had kids, and the kids are writing the proposal to fix it. As to the idea of multiple "kinds" of UB, the standard defines this term exactly once.
There are a few things that I expect to see from Bjarne, Herb and WG21 generally that will mean they've finally figured out the true nature of the problem. When / if I see those things they may begin work to get C++ to where it'd need to be to stay relevant - not "relevant" the way COBOL is relevant, but relevant the way C++ still is in 2023. Meanwhile they're gliding, losing momentum.
Firstly, and the biggest hurdle, that the problem is Cultural. Yes Rust has some nicer technology, that's not enough, the technology supports a Culture, you could build C++'s culture with Rust's technology but that's worse, so, don't waste your time doing that.
Next though, most important of the technical insights and unwelcome if you spent your life on the C++ language, there are two choices of what to do about Rice's Theorem and C++ chose wrong, it will need to fix that, and the fix isn't cheap because it's a broad change to the entire language standard. If you have no stomach for that fix, it's likely actually better to announce that unsafety is your intent, and wrestle with the consequences as they are than to pretend you don't need the fix to get safety which is false.
What I mean here is, suppose I wrote a program which I say is safe, but the compiler can't see why it's safe. In Rust that's simple, the program doesn't compile. In C++ though the program compiles, and, if I'm correct, it's safe, but, if I'm wrong it has Undefined Behaviour (actually it's a bit worse, but that'll do in context). Henry Rice showed that we have no choice in these rich high level languages (which want non-trivial semantic properties of software), such programs will definitely exist, C++ allows this to happen a lot and Rust works hard to avoid that where possible, because in C++ the consequence is it compiles anyway and in Rust the consequence is it won't compile so that's undesirable.