It is not clear what the purpose of the paper is. The paper has section "Abstract" but it doesn't help figure out the purpose. "This paper traces the path from one to the other." -- yes, but why? Why do you feel it is important to communicate this to WG21 via a paper? Section "Disclosure": first two paragraphs indeed disclose something. The last two do not qualify as "disclosure". Section "Diagnosis". The title is confusing. What is being diagnosed? The sequencing of facts leads the reader to believe that the objection "no way to signal failure from execute()" is the reason why WG21 switched from executors to S/R. There is no evidence for this, but this conclusion, even though not stated in plain text, will be imprinted in the reader's head. Section "The Framing" makes a claim that when you adopt the "schedule work" view then no-failure-reporting is a problem, but when you adopt the "schedule continuation" view then no-failure-reporting is not a problem. I expected to find the explanation for why this is the case. I didn't find any. This is a statement (a key statement, apparently) without a supporting evidence/proof. Section "The Coroutine Executor": I may remember this incorrectly, but it looks like the intrusive pointer implementation indeed allows you to schedule the continuation without any resource allocation: it just cannot fail. It is not that you are concealing failures: you just guarantee with the design that there will be no failures. If I am right about this, this should be stressed as the crucial point, addressing the objection in P2464R0. Section "The Symmetry". It is unclear what the table compares and *why*. "The committee rediscovered that continuations need a continuation-framed executor." -- I do not see how what has been written earlier in the paper would lead to this conclusion. The author assumes that the reader is familiar with the term "continuation-framed executor". This assumption is unfounded. Section "The Return" misses a very important observation. the Executor model just didn't allow reporting errors from scheduling continuations. S/R with std::exec::taks on top gives user an option: either the S/R verbose model with scheduling error reporting, or a "nice" interface without the reporting. This is a huge difference. The fact that Mungo had to explain in this thread what the paper does, is an indication that the paper itself didn't do its good job at explaining its purpose. I find something unethical about this "AI-generated paper + human review requests" setup. Traditionally, a review means:
The author made an effort to communicate something that they feel is important, to make sure that the information is accurate and complete, and that it is presented in a way that it will be consumable by the reader. Reviewers are then requested to check if some cracks still exist.
In this AI setup this changes to:
AI just generates some text, indistinguishable at the first glance from reasoning, intention and intellectual honesty. Reviewers are now expected to engage in an effort to put the product to a shape where the paper communicates something they feal important, to make sure that the information is accurate and complete, and that it it presented in a way that it will be consumable by the reader.
The real effort of making sure that a true idea is conveyed cleanly to the readers is moved from the author onto the reviewers. Yet, the author is credited. I cannot be sure that the content is the AI product. I infer this from my impression where: 1. It has section "Abstract" but after reading it I still don't know what this paper is about and for. 2. It has sentences with the shape of logical inferences (there is a premise cause, there is a conclusion clause), but after reading them I do not know what is communicated and why. Regards, &rzej;