Thanks, so from "Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a commercial implementation should be considered", this precludes stuff that may only exist in
clang, gcc, glibc, etc.? If so, why?
I wouldn't read into "commercial" there, I think we meant "production-quality" instead. (We should fix that!)
Basically, we prefer seeing features that real users have used as opposed to an experimental branch of a compiler that doesn't have usage experience. Knowing it can be implemented is one thing, but knowing users want to use it is more compelling.
