It is not something you can solve with 3 questions on this mailing list and a bit of bike-shedding on top.

It is a task worthy of 5-10 PhD theses.

(not saying one person cannot solve it).

And some are trying.
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
Gesendet: Di 22.07.2025 16:01
Betreff: Re: [std-proposals] Similar to [[no_discard]], but store in a variable, maybe call it [[must_store]]
An: std-proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>;
CC: Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com>;
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 2:18 PM Peter Bindels wrot:e:
>
> how do you like the name "lifetimebound" instead?


Yeah I'd be OK with [[lifetimebound]] or maybe one of these:

1. [[generates_temporary_handle]]
2. [[lifetime_bound]]
3. [[temporary_handle]]
4. [[object_lifetime_handle]]
5. [[handle_lifetime_bound]]
6. [[dependent_lifetime]]
7. [[transient_handle]]
8. [[lifetime_limited]]

I wonder should we limit it to return values? I mean sometimes we have
functions like this:

   bool MyClass::SomeMethod(   Handle &p  );

The programmer passes an uninitialised handle to 'SomeMethod', and
then the handle gets set by 'SomeMethod', like this:

   bool MyClass::SomeMethod(   Handle &p  )
   {
       static Handle h = 0u;
       p = ++h;
       return p != std::numeric_limits<Handle>::max();
   }
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals