We think there's substantial potential for these names in other DSL-like situations, not just SIMD. And like I said, we really can't steal these as non-contextual keywords because they're somewhat widely used in existing libraries.
I appreciate that there may be potential DSL-like situations in the future, and why there is a strong desire to set a precedent with this proposal. However, I have some concerns about the "somewhat widely used" assertion. For example, what data has been collected to determine how somewhat widely used the any identifier really is? How was the data collected? And what metrics were compared?
It's not my intention to make anyone feel bad by asking these questions. I'm just trying to subtly point out that the addition of any new keyword is going to conflict with some subset of existing libraries. And while I believe it was not intended, it feels very dismissive when someone asserts, without any supporting evidence, that keywords can't be stolen from existing libraries. It feels extra dismissive considering how this proposal aims to introduce global functions, effectively stealing away the identifier in question from the same existing libraries.