Hi,
Some comments:

It’s “godbolt” or “compiler explorer,” not “GodBolt”

“We introduce” - you and Thomas Healy? If so, all authors should be listed.

Since the motivation relies on extremely heavy use of OOP, maybe discuss
how prevalent this is and alternatives to that heavy use of OOP.

More discussion of alternatives and implementation would be useful.
Discussion of alternatives could be done better by discussing each
alternative as you present them instead of just listing a handful of points
after. The design considerations section merely lists design choices
without discussion or consideration.

Please link a commit hash instead of a branch in case more commits are
added at a later date.

Since the proposal is largely motivated by code size “ballooning” from
templates, please discuss how significant this issue really is and discuss
ICF.

Regarding forbid_ambiguity: Why is this not the default?

Implementation discussion where you claim compiler support is required
should definitely mention reflection, especially given papers that will
hopefully extend reflection capabilities in C++29.

If the committee is interested, the name will be bikeshed. It would be
worth considering alternative names.

Cheers,
Jeremy

On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:01 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Here's my paper on std::chimeric_ptr :
>
> http://www.virjacode.com/papers/chimeric_pointer.htm
>
> Also the HTML file is attached to this email.
>
> All of the features described in the paper are tested and working in
> the GodBolt links provided (i.e. I have my own patched compiler up on
> GodBolt). Feel free to edit the GodBolts and experiment with it.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>