Hi, Arthur! Thanks for your reply!

> Your paper suffers from long Latinate sentences and (in some places) the
bolding and sycophancy characteristic of ChatGPT output.

You got me :), I do use GPT for the paper's generation, as my English
capability is not sufficient for that. I'll try to simplify the wording.

> You introduce P0962R1 by paper number but never mention its title, and
it's not until the very end of §4 that you mention "P0962R1 was adopted as
a Defect Report." (Until then, you'd carefully avoided mentioning whether
P0962R1 was even discussed, let alone accepted!) So in your Figure 2, does
"C++11" mean "C++11 as originally shipped," and "P0962R1" mean "C++11 after
the DR"? It would be good to mention some years, too. IIUC, P0962 was
adopted sometime around 2018 or 2019?
> Nit: In your Table 1, some of the "Case"s end with "+ ADL," and some
don't. But if I understand correctly, all of them should equally end with
"+ ADL."

You're definitely right, I'll fix that in the next version.

> So, your paper does not fix the one thing I think would be worth fixing.

There are two differences between `ranges::for_each` and `for`; my paper
only addresses the "presence" vs. "valid" distinction, because I was a
little afraid of making the paper too large given my experience. Actually,
my opinion is more aggressive than what's in this paper: I'd like to
totally relax the checking on the `for` expression, making it check whether
`begin` and `end` are *valid separately*, so that `for` may be aligned with
`ranges::for_each`. (I'm not sure about that, though — it may need a
thorough investigation. If that sounds good to you, I'll dive into that.)

> It would help if your paper explicitly claimed either "Adopting this
proposal would resolve LWG4389, permitting library vendors to use `for` in
place of `ranges::for_each`," or vice versa (that it wouldn't do so).

If the paper is altered as I described above, we could permit library
vendors to use `for` in place of `ranges::for_each`.

Thanks again,
Connor