David Rector wrote:
> I either cannot find or don’t have access to the revised paper, so apologies if
> this was discussed therein, but: can you comment on the choice to return a
> span instead of a non-random-access range object? (I.e. provide a begin() and
> an end(), but no size(), operator[](size_t), etc.?)

That's what the Lock3 implementation does if I'm not mistaken.