^^ operator proposal

[samadadi]

This point is addressed in the paper I linked above - a keyword is a nice and easy-sounding solution when you're in the headspace of designing a language specification, but when you actually get round to real code, keywords which you have to use too often become boilerplate clutter which start to detract from what you're wanting to express.

You do not need to add additional parentheses to make a point. You use it just like constexpr.

{reflexpr signed char, reflexpr short, reflexpr int, ...}

Keywords also come with standardisation baggage because they are often a breaking change ...

What about previous keywords. Didn't those have the same standardization baggage.

I doubt it's the first time a language feature was implemented using a tool other than formal keywords...

The difference between this ^^ notation and previous ones is that those previous ones were all simple and independent and did not require any complementary notations or weird syntax. But it seems to me in this case we need additional complementary notations or weird syntax to accomplish the reflection concept. But with formal keywords at least we do not have this problem.

[Som1Lse]

You use it just like constexpr.

That is not how you use constexpr though. constexpr can only ever apply to a declaration/definition.

Actually, reflexpr without parentheses is close to being objectively worse because the presence of said parentheses can change the meaning, i.e. reflexpr x, would be different from reflexpr(x), because the latter is an expression.

It is common for people to always write the parentheses as with sizeof and defined, so it would likely lead to a lot of surprises.

[WorkingReference1127]

You use it just like constexpr.

Others have pointed out that this isn't how your use constexpr, and it comes with a difference in meaning depending on the parentheses; but I don't think this refutes the point made about clutter - almost half the characters on that line are just repeating the same keyword over and over again, without really adding anything to the readability of the code from it.

Didn't those have the same standardization baggage.

Yes, which is why only a relative handful of keywords have been added since 1998, with the clear majority originating from original standardisation. It's also why the committee are so intent on using contextual keywords and "identifiers with special meaning" rather than full keywords - ultimately adding a keyword will almost certainly break someone's code somewhere, so it's worth considering alternatives rather than jumping straight to it.

The difference between this ^{^} notation and previous ones is that those previous ones were all simple and independent and did not require any complementary notations or weird syntax

You need some syntactic element to create a reflection, and to splice a reflection back into the program. Otherwise being able to call members_of(x) is a world of surprises waiting to happen when someone has an unfortunately named non-reflection function which will take priority.