Thank you so much, @zygoloid!

@jensmaurer, @opensdh: Richard has made some great arguments here for why "can" isn't always a good choice. So we will be seeing all these reverted cases on a CWG reflector discussion, I expect; I just wanted to point out this context.

@tkoeppe, I actually think "might" is the perfect word to use for the possibility of risk. I'm wondering whether we should keep "might" for our working draft and just mechanically replace with "can" for ISO/CS' joys.
I'm fine with CWG reviewing specific rephrasing suggestions for accuracy, but just tossing a bunch of open-ended "might" issues over doesn't seem a good use of CWG's time.

@tkoeppe, I actually think "might" is the perfect word to use for the possibility of risk. I'm wondering whether we should keep "might" for our working draft and just mechanically replace with "can" for ISO/CS' joys.
I'm fine with CWG reviewing specific rephrasing suggestions for accuracy, but just tossing a bunch of open-ended "might" issues over doesn't seem a good use of CWG's time.

Thanks, that's certainly an option -- or should I say, "we might do that"? :-)

It wouldn't be open-ended issues, though; the proposal would very specifically consist of the remaining, unmerged diffs.