>> Because of inconsistencies/typos/thinkos like this, I doubt that
>> P1434R0 is a firm footing on which to base anything at the moment.
>
> It was never intended to be. It was just meant for a preview to let
> you know where we are heading.

Indeed. And do let me be clear that my disagreement with P1434 is purely
on what I think is implementation feasibility, not with its general aim.
In my opinion we are long overdue a source breaking change with legacy
code for the ecosystem's long term benefit, ideally coordinated at both
the C and C++ levels.

>> Is there a P1434R1 in the works?
>
> Not as such, but yes, we are busy writing things up for the WG14
> pre-London mailing, which is basically due by the end of the
> week. Coordinated by Peter Sewell, there are three different papers in
> the works.

I'll also be submitting my paper for the London meeting, though purely
as an informational paper for WG14, to give a different perspective.

Niall