> Carbon is not trying to be 100% interoperable with C++ It's trying for some fuzzy notion of "good enough"
No, it's clearly not a "fuzzy" notion of interop even in the most uncharitable interpretation. Your assertion is mis-information.
"Seamless, bidirectional interoperability with C++, such that a library anywhere in an existing C++ stack can adopt Carbon without porting the rest."
Support mixing Carbon and C++ toolchains
Compatibility with the C++ memory model
Minimize bridge code
Unsurprising mappings between C++ and Carbon types
Allow C++ bridge code in Carbon files
Carbon inheritance from C++ types
Support use of advanced C++ features
Support basic C interoperability
No, it's clearly not a "fuzzy" notion of interop even in the most uncharitable interpretation. Your assertion is mis-information.
"Seamless, bidirectional interoperability with C++, such that a library anywhere in an existing C++ stack can adopt Carbon without porting the rest."
Support mixing Carbon and C++ toolchains
Compatibility with the C++ memory model
Minimize bridge code
Unsurprising mappings between C++ and Carbon types
Allow C++ bridge code in Carbon files
Carbon inheritance from C++ types
Support use of advanced C++ features
Support basic C interoperability