1. Introduction
In 2025-10, the C++ Library Evolution group conducted a series of electronic decision polls [P3872R0]. This paper provides the results of those polls and summarizes the results.
In total, 9 people participated in the polls. Thank you to everyone who participated, and to the papers' authors for all their hard work!
2. Poll Outcomes
-
SF: Strongly Favor.
-
WF: Weakly Favor.
-
N: Neutral.
-
WA: Weakly Against.
-
SA: Strongly Against.
| Poll | SF | WF | N | WA | SA | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll 1: Send "[P3774R1] Rename std::nontype, and make it broadly useful" to Library Working Group as a DR (fix) for C++26. | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Consensus in favor |
| Poll 2: Send "[3798R1] The unexpected in std::expected" to Library Working Group for C++29. | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Strong Consensus in favor |
All the polls have consensus in favor and the papers will be forwarded to LWG.
3. Selected Poll Comments
For some of the comments, small parts were removed to anonymize.
3.1. Poll 1: Send "[P3774R1] Rename std::nontype, and make it broadly useful" to Library Working Group as a DR (fix) for C++26.
I fully agree with this paper, the new names are a considerable improvement.
— Strongly Favor
Getting away from "nontype" name is important. Choice of new name is not optimal but acceptable.
— Weakly Favor
Positive names are better than negative names (things with not, non, etc.).
— Weakly Favor
Reconsider R0 / P3843R0.
— Strongly Against
3.2. Poll 2: Send "[P3798R1] The unexpected in std::expected" to Library Working Group for C++29.
Seems very appropriate for reasons of symmetry. I looks much more like an oversight or defect, so I would also suggest it for C++26.
— Strongly Favor
I’m all for more expressive code. Minimal interfaces are not easy to teach, to discover and to read.
— Strongly Favor
This is a simple enough addition to improve usability. While I don’t see a strong need for this change, there is no reason not to do this.
— Weakly Favor