I am looking at P3127R1 which came out last year. This looks like a very well written set of papers. I note that the papers are split up into areas of concern: Overview, Background, Algorithms, and so forth. This is my preference yet there are conflicting opinions. One prominent officer said they prefer everything to be folded into one paper for ease of reading. I find this unpersuasive.

I learned something from P3127R1. "CLRS" refers to a specific tome which establishes a common vocabulary and set of concepts. It appears to be the API Schelling point which C++ graph libraries naturally converge to. That is, that graphs and their algorithms are an area of study by a relatively smaller group of practitioners who have already naturally converged on vocabulary and representation (vertex list I believe).

What was the motivation for writing these papers if the library already exists?

Let me give you an example. std::filesystem could have stayed in the ecosystem (i.e. Boost, or GitHub). Yet standardization brings measurable benefits. It provides a common API and a prescribed set of implementation behaviors so that it can work on every platform. This is necessary because filesystem is a portable API which wraps non-portable or operating system level operations.

Yet graphs and their algorithms are already portable as they can be expressed in pure C++ with no external libraries or operating system APIs.

I presume Michael is Michael Wong?

Thanks