Friday, 26 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
Thursday, 25 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- Re: [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
- [std-proposals] A better std::byte type
Wednesday, 24 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- Re: [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- Re: [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- Re: [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- Re: [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- Re: [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- [std-proposals] Preprocessor multi-line macroes
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
Tuesday, 23 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
- Re: [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
- [std-proposals] D4285R0 Floating-point traits
Monday, 22 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- [std-proposals] Proposal: Deprecate namespace-scope declarations that are declared both static and inline
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
Sunday, 21 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Allow using type alias in requires-clause
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Huge Hello World
- Re: [std-proposals] Huge Hello World
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- [std-proposals] Huge Hello World
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Big integers
- Re: [std-proposals] Big integers
- Re: [std-proposals] Big integers
- [std-proposals] Big integers
- [std-proposals] Big integer
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Allow using type alias in requires-clause
- Re: [std-proposals] Allow using type alias in requires-clause
- Re: [std-proposals] [[assume_assert(expr)]] and/or evaluation semantics mode "assume".
Saturday, 20 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Allow using type alias in requires-clause
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Allow using type alias in requires-clause
- Re: [std-proposals] Entity concept
- Re: [std-proposals] Old Strings Proposal
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
Friday, 19 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Entity concept
- [std-proposals] Entity concept
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Old Strings Proposal
- [std-proposals] Old Strings Proposal
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Translation-unit-local functions that access private class fields
- Re: [std-proposals] Don't use templates for differentiating Lvalues from Rvalues
- Re: [std-proposals] Don't use templates for differentiating Lvalues from Rvalues
- [std-proposals] Don't use templates for differentiating Lvalues from Rvalues
Wednesday, 17 June 2026
Tuesday, 16 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
Monday, 15 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- [std-proposals] Direct-list-initialization syntax for default function arguments
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
Friday, 12 June 2026
Wednesday, 10 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations ..(Sebastian Wittmeier, Thiago Macieira, Rainer Deyke)
Tuesday, 9 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect..
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
Monday, 8 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect..
- Re: [std-proposals] Std-Proposals Digest, Vol 87, Issue 24
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect..
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
Sunday, 7 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- [std-proposals] Achieving pragma pack(1) with typedef<unaligned>
- Re: [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- [std-proposals] Float the idea: First-class effect annotations and resource contracts for C++
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
Saturday, 6 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- [std-proposals] Exceptions : lost all hope -- do not resuscitate
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
Friday, 5 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- Re: [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
- [std-proposals] equal_range on unordered associative containers
Wednesday, 3 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
Tuesday, 2 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- [std-proposals] Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] std::flat_map and bool keys/values
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
Monday, 1 June 2026
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- [std-proposals] Function-bound objects with unary operator %
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
- Re: [std-proposals] What a non-reallocating version of the standard would look like.
