On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:42 PM Thiago Macieira wrote
>
> If we can't get one into the C++26 standard in time, why would we get
> something else in the same line in time? Especially if there's already a paper
> that ostensibly is a better and wider solution?


The superior paper is suffering a lack of progress. Not enough talk
about it, not enough enthusiasm and drive to pull it into the
Standard.

My inferior paper is much much much simpler and doesn't require a
change to the core language. Not much thinking required to get it into
the Standard.

It's a lot more likely that a simple paper will make it into C++26,
than a much much much more complicated paper.