And you compare your proposal to C++ reflection or "other reflections"?
And is not "proposal", it very coles to be standard:
https://herbsutter.com/2024/07/02/trip-report-summer-iso-c-standards-meeting-st-louis-mo-usa/
Beside there is available for long time in experimental branch:
https://godbolt.org/z/zW9aMx8qM

```
constexpr auto r = ^int;
typename[:r:] x = 42; // Same as: int x = 42;
typename[:^char:] c = '*'; // Same as: char c = '*';

int main()
{

}
```

Did you read this paper at least once? Or is this too much to ask you?

To be totally honest with you... it is too much asked.

Because i need to get used to concepts, coroutines, executors, TS papers......etc

When i say understand, that means master.

None of which i use in my daily job.

And I'm not an avid "new feature" consumer, if what i have is sufficient.

Probably you are right, maybe i need to update gradually.

As I show here, it is near mature enough for many use cases.

Since you said it... I trust you.

here:
```
for (auto& f : vec) f();
```

Is same as yours:

>     for(const auto& f : vec)
>     {
>        cout << "function parameterized on t = " << /*some call to get the non-type template value*/ << endl;
>
>        cout << "ret val =" << f(10) << endl;
>     }

Simply the whole loop body is hidden in the `Handle` helper.
Show me real life problems that can't be handled like this.

Please read the bottom of that post not it's top.