> Not sure what to make of this. Is this a feature, or a whole design? My (high-level) understanding is that this is a response to some feedback [1, 2] to the

> Not sure what to make of this. Is this a feature, or a whole design? My (high-level) understanding is that this is a response to some feedback [1, 2] to the author's previous paper [0] which (very generally speaking) adds some Rust-like systems/semantics to C++ to achieve memory safety. Some commenters voiced disapproval of the need for lifetime annotations and expressed a desire to find a solution that doesn't require them. I think this paper is an exploration of that idea to see what can be achieved without lifetime annotations. [0]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3444r0.html https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p34... [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1ffgz49/safe_c_language_extensions_for_memory_safety/ https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1ffgz49/safe_c_languag... [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1fiuhb7/the_empire_of_c_strikes_back_with_safe_c_proposal/ https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1fiuhb7/the_empire_of_...