Very well put (deliberately using the exact terminology used in the standard)!
Can we just make that binding again? After all, it used to be.
It should be obvious to compiler writers what the intention of the standard is, because it says so in the dang text, but since this was downgraded to a note and you are technically not in violation if you do something different, everyone now acts as if doing the exact opposite of what is written there is somehow OK.
The downgrade to note-status seemed to be predicted on the idea implementors can be trusted to do The Right Thing™ in these cases. It is now evidently clear that they cannot, so we have to force them.
Can we just make that binding again? After all, it used to be.
It should be obvious to compiler writers what the intention of the standard is, because it says so in the dang text, but since this was downgraded to a note and you are technically not in violation if you do something different, everyone now acts as if doing the exact opposite of what is written there is somehow OK.
The downgrade to note-status seemed to be predicted on the idea implementors can be trusted to do The Right Thing™ in these cases. It is now evidently clear that they cannot, so we have to force them.