On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 1:59 PM Adrian Johnston via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hello Std Proposals,
>

[snip]

A couple of concerns regarding the methodology. First: using only 2 of the
3 "big" compilers. Second: using versions of the compilers that are 2 and
4 major versions behind. And third: not comparing against "import std;".

As for floating a proposal on this list, having things like <algorithm-core>
> that includes only the contents of <algorithm> as defined by C++11 would
> be a way to cut back. I can't say there are any clean and satisfying
> solutions that come to mind right now.
>

That's a discussion for the compiler vendors, not the language
specification. I doubt we're going to go back and specify the existence of
<algorithm-cpp11>. Offhand I don't see an issue if a compiler vendor chose
to implement their version of <algorithm> as a sequence of "#if __cplusplus
< 2011xxxx". (whatever the constant is) "#include <algorithm-cpp11>"
"#endif" "#if __cplusplus < 2014xxxx" "#include <algorithm-cpp14>". From
the Standard's perspective: user #includes <algorithm> gets the appropriate
algorithm bits.