We were always at war with C++

The proper term is double-plus-C

…then what is double-plus-un-C? A lisp? (and is “lisp” problematic?)

Violation. Using the term “we” implies agreement among all present.

correct. only big brother must agree.

> not referring to a specific standard of C++

This is a violation and implies that all of the C++ language is the same which may be offensive to users of a specific standard such as ISO/IEC 14882:2017. Referring to C++ generically ignores any differences between specifications.

Instead, referring to a specific standard, for example, C++11 is more appropriate to members of the ISO/IEC 14882 community.

Consider writing "C++1x" or "C++2x" instead.

You forgot the trigger warning! There are people in the C++ culture that would be highly offended by such language. And who wants to see a grey beard cry silent tears while investigating yet another core dump?

Note: I am a member of the C++ community and therefore have the credentials necessary to make fun of my culture. If you make fun of the C++ culture without being part of it then you are clearly in violation of new speak and a woke certified person will try to cancel you.

>You forgot the trigger warning! Bro, don't use that phrase. "The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person." Consider using "content note".

Ahh your comment triggered me! And you forgot the “content note”!