> But let's say that the C++ programming language were to be augmented in C++26 to allow us to write a function that accepts a PRvalue as an argument as follows:

I'd agree with Gašper that that would definitely not happen for C++26. I'd also encourage you to properly consider and settle on the best route you want this proposal to take; as talking about major new language features every time you need to fill in a gap in the existing proposal makes the proposal seem incomplete and potentially underdeveloped. It may well be that some flavour of the current approach with a class std::elide is the best route here; but I think the best version of this paper is one which has a single clear vision for what it's proposing and isn't going to be accompanied by semi-unrelated suggestions for core language features just to fill in the edge cases. Crucially, all this isn't just an exercise in finding a *working* solution to the problem, it's an exercise in finding the *optimal* solution to the problem, and taking some time to fully develop your ideas before rushing out an implementation or a paper is always a good idea.

With how many alternative routes have been suggested by yourself and by others on this list, it certainly wouldn't hurt to discuss them and defend why your chosen approach is the best one. But they should contribute to why you are proposing what you are proposing rather than having three for four possible flavours of the idea in one paper. Being unclear about what you want will just lead to a lot of back and forth on whether you considered approach X or whether it would be better to take route Y. Don't forget that in all odds you are the person who will have given your idea the most thought; so you will be best placed to explain why one route is better than the other, or ensure that it will mesh well with the rest of the language.