Responding to Mr. Jason McKesson's near and dear feedback dated [31-3-2026]
(I had some issues with my digest settings, so I'm replying manually):

​First, I would like to clarify that the reason I responded late was
because I couldn't find his mail until someone was kind enough to remind me
that your (McKesson's) response did, in fact, exist.

​I did think of that; in fact, that's the main reason why I couldn't sleep,
to be honest with you. Let me break it down on why I didn't use the
suggested technique:

​It can't technically work the way you would expect, since functions can be
overloaded based on enums, and if it can't be overloaded, then it can't
have different return types. Why does this matter? Well, the STL containers
don't share a common container base, so making this work would require you
to add a base class with virtual functions like pop_back(), at(), etc. Then
you would have to implement them for each derived class and then return the
appropriate derived class.

​Hope that is an appropriate response ❤️❤️❤️.