I think std::maybe is a sub-optimal choice with std::optional around.

Better

std::inband_optional or

std::optional_inband or

std::intrusive_optional or

std::optional_intrusive

so that the close relationship, but also the difference to std::optional is clear.

(I think to actually be intrusive it would have to be used differently than as a template<valuetype>, rather class valuetype : public optional_intrusive)
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Peter Neiss via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
Gesendet: Sa 04.04.2026 19:47
Betreff: [std-proposals] Fwd: zero overhead for std::optional
An: std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org;
CC: Peter Neiss <peter.stefan.neiss@gmail.com>;

Thanks Guy,

I read the ISO AI document and agree with it fully. I checked the AI generated code and documents.

If ABI will be a mayor issue, std::maybe could be an alternative name. I dont see an alternative for an additional NTTP template parameter.

When there is interest in the proposal, what would i have to do next to get a proper N???? number and which study Group should I contact.

Help appreciated,

Peter

-- 
 Std-Proposals mailing list
 Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
 https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals