Hi Connor, just a quick feedback.   Have you been in contact with some of the community reporting and discussing this? I put those on CC.   Arthur described the issue on his Blog (referenced in LWG4389). He normally also frequents this list.   Jiang An (frederick-vs-ja or F.v.S./de34 on this list) submitted LWG4389. Another possible source for feedback. Also look in libc++ bug #119161, Hewill Kang and Jonathan Wakely discussed there with him. All 3 frequent this list.   LWG4389 gives 2 solution alternatives including wording. Have you used one of them or used a third alternative one? Perhaps compare and give a reason for your direction.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:宋志博 via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Mo 10.08.2026 07:55 Betreff:[std-proposals] Fwd: [Draft Proposal] Further relaxing the range-for loop customization point finding rules Anlage:PXXXXR0.pdf An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:宋志博 <perdixky_at_[hidden]>; Hi all, I'd like to ask for feedback on a draft proposal: Further relaxing the range-for loop customization point finding rules The proposal revisits the rule used by range-based for to choose between member begin/end and ADL customization. Currently, if class-scope lookup finds declarations named both begin and end, range-based for commits to the member interpretation, even when the corresponding member calls cannot actually participate. This can prevent an otherwise valid non-intrusive ADL customization from being used, and also contributes to the discrepancy described by LWG 4389. The draft proposes committing to the member interpretation only when both member operations are applicable. I've attached the current draft for review. I would particularly appreciate feedback on: * whether the motivating problem is sufficiently compelling; * whether candidate viability is the right boundary for member lock-in; * compatibility or implementation concerns I may have overlooked; * relevant prior work or edge cases that should be discussed. This is my first WG21 proposal, so comments on the presentation and scope are also very welcome. Thanks, Connor Song -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals