@jwakely @inbal2l this looks like something that should go straight to LWG, WDYT?

This was discussed on the mailing list (Mon, 29 Apr 2024) https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2024/04/27282.php

LEWG did not feel a change to be compelling, arguing that submitting an issue to libstdc++ to be consistent with clang and msvc might be more effective.
The code patterns this would allow were not found to be motivating.

Further discussions are likely to depend on the outcome of https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2525 (@jensmaurer).

That being said, the paper seems to be aligned with the intent [optional.nullopt] so I still think LWG can legiferate on this paper independently of LEWG.

It was observed that this paper also touches on LWG2510, for which LWG might want a more holistic resolution.

LEWG asks that the author (with the help of CWG, LWG chairs) explore a more general modification: stop using explicit constructors where no type is named explicitly.

https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2024/05/27369.php