--- title: audience: All WG21 reply-to: - "D. Vandevoorde " document: p5000r1 date: 2026-05-11 paper-type: proposal --- The above suggests priorities for standardization goals. However, we believe WG21’s work could also benefit from topical studies to gather data that will hopefully bring better understanding of the reality of C++. Examples include: * Impact of optimization on predictability/security. * Exception handling vs. error codes (cost/performance). * Compile-time and run-time impact of Modules and Contracts. * Teachability: Consider how to explain the novel features to new and average developers — C++ must not be just “expert friendly.” ### 6. Recommended Action Guidelines for C++29 Given the severe constraints on committee time and implementation resources for C++29, the DG strongly encourages adherence to the following procedural guidelines in addition to Section 5 Process of P2000 as guidance to the chairs and members: * **Safety and Profiles Framework:** A suggested roadmap for this cycle is detailed in the standalone paper: P3970R0: **Profiles and Safety: a call to** action. * **Encouraging Convergence:** Chairs are asked to act as matchmakers to help merge competing proposals See **P4024R0: Guidance on Building Consensus and Converging** Proposals. * **AI Authorship Guidelines:** Human authors should always remain the 'intelligence of record.' See **P4023R0: Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and** Ecosystem. Always consider the cost of discussing, implementing, and adopting proposals. Completing 3 proposals is better than reaching the deadline for C++29 with 6 proposals 80% ready.