I think std::maybe is a sub-optimal choice with std::optional around.   Better std::inband_optional or std::optional_inband or std::intrusive_optional or std::optional_intrusive   so that the close relationship, but also the difference to std::optional is clear.   (I think to actually be intrusive it would have to be used differently than as a template<valuetype>, rather class valuetype : public optional_intrusive)   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Peter Neiss via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Sa 04.04.2026 19:47 Betreff:[std-proposals] Fwd: zero overhead for std::optional An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Peter Neiss <peter.stefan.neiss_at_[hidden]>; Thanks Guy, I read the ISO AI document and agree with it fully. I checked the AI generated code and documents. If ABI will be a mayor issue, std::maybe could be an alternative name. I dont see an alternative for an additional NTTP template parameter. When there is interest in the proposal, what would i have to do next to get a proper N???? number and which study Group should I contact. Help appreciated, Peter -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals