Need a better motivating example

[TBBle]

The motivating example's pretty weak, and as noted in https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msg/std-proposals/eoU_uFtOOUA/I2i4D9MzCQAJ is actually flawed.

Quoting the whole email, although the typeid aside is already #1

The only reason I see personally, for why one might want to allow
this, is to support a default/value-initialized return object (such as
"return {};"). The ambiguity-resolution seems not to be so motivating,
as that can always be solved simply by putting extra parentheses
around the type (BTW a "void()" within sizeof, typeid etc does not
declare a function, but specifies a type. you may want to correct that
in the paper).

As such, you may want to change your example, by instead writing
"return {};". Because when you are already fine with repeating the
type name, you can easily write your return statement as "return
Return();". I see no problem with that, and advices such as "ES.23:
Prefer the {} initializer syntax" are based on personal taste and like
any rule-of-thumb, there may be exceptions. "Type()" is just as safe
as "Type{}". In fact, you can argue that "Type()" is yet safer because
"Type{}" allows the construction of unnamed references initialized by
temporaries, and therefore to hide this error:

int && f() { return decltype(f()){}; } // returns dangling reference

To clarify, I support your proposal, but I find it a bit poorly motivated.

[TBBle]

I need to find my notes from ACCU2017, I'm sure people suggested better motivations to me after the lightning talk, but I don't know if I wrote them down or not.