Den 2025-08-25 kl. 22:44, skrev Howard Hinnant:
> On Aug 25, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Ted Lyngmo <ted_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> *If* I go ahead and write a proposal for this, should I make it only
>> about these freestanding function templates or should I go for the
>> unique_multilock (for lack of a better name) in the same paper? I'm
>> guessing it's easier to get approval the more specific it is, so the
>> unique_multilock should be saved for later, right?
>
> I think either approach could work. You never know with the committee.
> My personal success rate when I was at the top of my game was only
> about 50%.

Oh my... I think that's another reason why I'd better concentrate on the
function templates to start with. Without them, unique_multilock will
not exist.

> I recommend that you drop “freestanding” from all of your descriptions
> going forward as that word means something else in the C++ standard.
> “Namespace-scope” is probably a better term for what you mean.

Oh, how true. Thanks!

/Ted