at least you could keep their reviews so users could at least know if the app can be trusted.

You mean, don’t trust a flatpak uploaded by a random person, but if there are enough fake reviews, it can be trusted?

No mention of Reflection which was passed to the Core Working Group for wording review, or senders/receivers (on the library side) which was actually voted into the working paper.

Huh? There is no such alternation between new features and feature freeze releases. In fact, C++26 will very likely get reflection as a major new feature. In comparison, the biggest core language feature in C++23 was probably “deducting this (explicit object member functions)”.

The only thing that keeps Contracts out of C++26 is that they might not be finished in time (they’ll need to be handed over from Evolution to Core by the February 2025 meeting, and then make it through Core review during the summer 2025 meeting).

… except when ISO delays publication of the standard.

Depends on what semantic you want. Sure, if you use a unique_ptr member, you will get a deleted copy constructor/operator - I wouldn’t consider that blowing up in my face.

And even the presented fix hurts my eyes. Should have used a unique_ptr or optional.