On 16/07/2026 10:24, Yexuan Xiao via Std-Proposals wrote:
> I have realized that the second version I proposed is incorrect and the
> first version is correct, except for its name and the parameter.

Just to better understand, are you proposing to expose/standardize the
functionality currently "hidden" into ranges::to?

Specifically the reserveable-container machinery in

https://eel.is/c++draft/range.utility.conv#to-2.1.4

https://eel.is/c++draft/range.utility.conv#general-3


Thanks,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo