Everybody has their niche. Lots of people have had input and made an impact on this.

I can presume that for every person who contributed there must be thousands of people who use these types of library features.

I have heard from many of them. They frequently make conference presentations.

If you don't see the need, don't use it. "What you don't use, you don't pay for"

But they do so let them do their thing.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 12:12 PM Vinnie Falco via SG19 <sg19@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 12:03 PM Oleksandr Koval <oleksandr.koval.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for intervention guys but Vinnie just mentioned a thing that was in my mind for a while:
for example, keeping it on GitHub

...I don't understand why put so much effort instead of simply implementing it on GitHub...

That's a sharp point and it touches on my question yet it stands adjacent. What I am interested in is not the library and it is not the wording. What I would like to know is the decision making process which led to writing the paper. What was the measurement, the evidence, the rationale for deciding this should go in the standard?

This is an important question, as when a library becomes standardized there is a significant cost. Not just the perpetual cost of maintenance, but once a library goes in then it is extremely difficult to make any changes which would break ABI. We should never be in a hurry to standardize something as the penalty for not getting it perfect is high. "No" should be the default answer to questions of the form "should this be standardized." Only with overwhelming evidence (measurements, deployment experience, user testimonials, market survey) should the No become Yes.

Thanks

--
SG19 mailing list
SG19@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19