Thanks and thats the main point of my proposal that is to make the language
consistent and more standard

On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 8:43 PM Simon Schröder <dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2026, at 5:14 PM, Muneem via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > For references, it is to point to a single object for it's whole life
> time(that is if references do have a lifetime)
>
> I do agree with this statement. However, if you would’ve read the existing
> std::optional<T&> proposal you would know that this view is not shared
> among the entire C++ community. Specifically for the optional, people would
> want to reassign the optional to point to something different. I take from
> the existing proposal that most implementations of optional that predate
> the standard allow reassignment and that this is used in production code.
>
> There are good reasons for this view even if you (and I) don’t share them.
>
> And I don’t see a point in trying to convince everybody to think
> otherwise. I feel like this discussion is already mostly over. And even if
> I don’t like the outcome, I’d advocate for the same kind of behavior for
> std::variant<Ts&…> because it is more important to be consistent than to be
> right (in cases where there is not absolute right or wrong).