I am really really sorry for the confusion(my earlier proposal was very
broad and trying to play all sides to get feedback), this is the completely
proposal where I updated my proposal to be clear:
https://github.com/HjaldrKhilji/Future-potential-ISO-porposals/blob/main/Extension%20to%20runtime%20polymorphism.txt
.
I am really really sorry if my original proposal was overly general and
minimal, but I made it so that I don't imply what's best without consulting
and discussing from the ground up.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2026, 2:42 am Barry Revzin via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 1:49 PM Emanuel Spiridon via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I submitted the paper regarding this proposal, which can be read here:
>> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P4174R0.pdf
>>
>> I submitted it in time for the June 8th through 13th meetings in Brno,
>> the last concern I have is that I can't go to Brno in person, and I also
>> don't know anyone that can go in my place, while also understanding the
>> concept of this proposal and its flaws.
>>
>> However, if someone on the mailing list is familiar with the core concept
>> of the paper, is able to travel to Brno and attend the meeting, and could
>> possibly have more questions about the proposal, then please contact me.
>>
>
> I don't understand what's being proposed here.
>
> The paper is proposing three additions:
>
>
> - type_tag_list, which is not mentioned anywhere else
> - merge_tags_and_types_t, which is used in two places but not
> explained, and
> - tag_contains, which is not mentioned anywhere else either.
>
>
> Can you clarify what specifically you are proposing?
>
> Barry
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>