1. Revision History
1.1. Revision 5 - January 13th, 2020
- 
     Split #embed 
- 
     Add memory and time benchmarks from various implementation strategies in the new Current Practice section. 
- 
     Address concerns for a generic API and similar in the new Results Analysis section. 
- 
     Retarget to EWG and SG 7. 
1.2. Revision 4 - November 26th, 2018
- 
     Wording is now relative to [n4778]. 
- 
     Minor typo and tweak fixes. 
1.3. Revision 3 - November 26th, 2018
- 
     Change to using consteval 
- 
     Discuss potential issues with accessing resources after full semantic analysis is performed. Prepare to poll Evolution Working Group. Reference new paper, [p1130], about resource management. 
1.4. Revision 2 - October 10th, 2018
- 
     Destroy embed_options alignment constexpr constexpr ! 
1.5. Revision 1 - June 10th, 2018
- 
     Create future directions section, follow up on Library Evolution Working Group comments. 
- 
     Change std :: embed_options :: null_terminated std :: embed_options :: null_terminate 
- 
     Add more code demonstrating the old way and motivating examples. 
- 
     Incorporate LEWG feedback, particularly alignment requirements illuminated by Odin Holmes and Niall Douglass. Add a feature macro on top of having __has_include ( < embed > ) 
1.6. Revision 0 - May 11th, 2018
Initial release.
2. Motivation
I’m very keen on std::embed. I’ve been hand-embedding data in executables for NEARLY FORTY YEARS now. — Guy "Hatcat" Davidson, June 15, 2018
| Currently | With Proposal | 
|---|---|
| 
 
 |     
 | 
| 
 
 | (Works here.) | 
A very large amount of C and C++ programmer -- at some point -- attempts to 
- 
     Financial Development - 
       representing coefficients and numeric constants for performance-critical algorithms; 
 
- 
       
- 
     Game Development - 
       assets that do not change at runtime, such as icons, fixed textures and other data; 
- 
       Shader and scripting code; 
 
- 
       
- 
     Embedded Development - 
       storing large chunks of binary, such as firmware, in a well-compressed format; 
- 
       placing data in memory on chips and systems that do not have an operating system or file system; 
 
- 
       
- 
     Application Development - 
       compressed binary blobs representing data 
- 
       non-C++ script code that is not changed at runtime; 
 
- 
       
- 
     Server Development - 
       configuration parameters which are known at build-time and are baked in to set limits and give compile-time information to tweak performance under certain loads; 
- 
       SSL/TLS Certificates hard-coded into your executable (requiring a rebuild and potential authorization before deploying new certificates), and; 
 
- 
       
- 
     Static Analyzers - 
       Static analyzers suffer -- much like their binary code generating friends -- from having to parse extremely large array literals; 
- 
       Reduces memory pressure and enables better information tracking and potential sanitization (file source is not lost in build system). 
 
- 
       
In the pursuit of this goal, these tools have proven to have inadequacies and contribute poorly to the C++ development cycle as it continues to scale up for larger and better low-end devices and high-performance machines, bogging developers down with menial build tasks and trying to cover-up disappointing differences between platforms. It also absolutely destroys state-of-the-art compilers due to the extremely high memory overhead of producing an Abstract Syntax Tree for a braced initializer list of several tens of thousands of integral constants with numeric values at 255 or less.
The request for some form of 
This paper proposes 
3. Scope and Impact
4. Design Decisions
4.1. Current Practice
Here, we examine current practice, their benefits, and their pitfalls. There are a few cross-platform (and not-so-cross-platform) paths for getting data into an executable. We also scrutinize the performance, with numbers for both memory overhead and speed overhead available at the repository that houses the current implementation. For ease of access, the numbers as of January 2020 with the latest versions of the indicated compilers and tools are replicated below.
All three major implementations were explored, plus an early implementation of this functionality in GCC. A competing implementation in a separate C++-like meta language called Circle was also looked at by the behest of Study Group 7.
4.1.1. Speed Results
Below are timing results for a file of random bytes using a specific strategy. The file is of the size specified at the top of the column. Files are kept the same between strategies and tests.
- 
     Intel Core i7-6700HQ @ 2.60 GHz 
- 
     24.0 GB RAM 2952 MHz 
- 
     Debian Sid or Windows 10 
- 
     Method: Gather timings from time Measure - Command { ... } 
| Strategy | 4 bytes | 40 bytes | 400 bytes | 4 kilobytes | 
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCC | 0.201 s | 0.208 s | 0.207 s | 0.218 s | 
| GCC | 0.709 s | 0.724 s | 0.711 s | 0.715 s | 
| -generated GCC | 0.225 s | 0.215 s | 0.237 s | 0.247 s | 
| -generated Clang | 0.272 s | 0.275 s | 0.272 s | 0.272 s | 
| -generated MSVC | 0.204 s | 0.229 s | 0.209 s | 0.232 s | 
| Circle @ | 0.353 s | 0.359 s | 0.361 s | 0.361 s | 
| Circle @ | 0.199 s | 0.208 s | 0.204 s | 0.368 s | 
| (linker) | 0.501 s | 0.482 s | 0.519 s | 0.527 s | 
| Strategy | 40 kilobytes | 400 kilobytes | 4 megabytes | 40 megabytes | 
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCC | 0.236 s | 0.231 s | 0.300 s | 1.069 s | 
| GCC | 0.705 s | 0.713 s | 0.772 s | 1.135 s | 
| -generated GCC | 0.406 s | 2.135 s | 23.567 s | 225.290 s | 
| -generated Clang | 0.366 s | 1.063 s | 8.309 s | 83.250 s | 
| -generated MSVC | 0.552 s | 3.806 s | 52.397 s | Out of Memory | 
| Circle @ | 0.353 s | 0.363 s | 0.421 s | 0.585 s | 
| Circle @ | 0.238 s | 0.199 s | 0.219 s | 0.368 s | 
| (linker) | 0.500 s | 0.497 s | 0.555 s | 2.183 s | 
| Strategy | 400 megabytes | 1 gigabyte | 
|---|---|---|
| GCC | 9.803 s | 26.383 s | 
| GCC | 4.170 s | 11.887 s | 
| -generated GCC | Out of Memory | Out of Memory | 
| -generated Clang | Out of Memory | Out of Memory | 
| -generated MSVC | Out of Memory | Out of Memory | 
| Circle @ | 2.655 s | 6.023 s | 
| Circle @ | 1.886 s | 4.762 s | 
| (linker) | 22.654 s | 58.204 s | 
4.1.2. Memory Size Results
Below is the peak memory usage (heap usage) for a file of random bytes using a specific strategy. The file is of the size specified at the top of the column. Files are kept the same between strategies and tests.
- 
     Intel Core i7-6700HQ @ 2.60 GHz 
- 
     24.0 GB RAM 2952 MHz 
- 
     Debian Sid or Windows 10 
- 
     Method: / usr / bin / time - v 
| Strategy | 4 bytes | 40 bytes | 400 bytes | 4 kilobytes | 
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCC | 17.26 MB | 17.26 MB | 17.26 MB | 17.27 MB | 
| GCC | 38.82 MB | 38.77 MB | 38.80 MB | 38.80 MB | 
| -generated GCC | 17.26 MB | 17.26 MB | 17.26 MB | 17.27 MB | 
| -generated Clang | 35.12 MB | 35.22 MB | 35.31 MB | 35.88 MB | 
| -generated MSVC | < 30.00 MB | < 30.00 MB | < 33.00 MB | < 38.00 MB | 
| Circle @ | 53.56 MB | 53.60 MB | 53.53 MB | 53.88 MB | 
| Circle @ | 33.35 MB | 33.34 MB | 33.34 MB | 33.35 MB | 
| (linker) | 17.32 MB | 17.31 MB | 17.31 MB | 17.31 MB | 
| Strategy | 40 kilobytes | 400 kilobytes | 4 megabytes | 40 megabytes | 
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCC | 17.26 MB | 17.96 MB | 53.42 MB | 341.72 MB | 
| GCC | 38.80 MB | 40.10 MB | 59.06 MB | 208.52 MB | 
| -generated GCC | 24.85 MB | 134.34 MB | 1,347.00 MB | 12,622.00 MB | 
| -generated Clang | 41.83 MB | 103.76 MB | 718.00 MB | 7,116.00 MB | 
| -generated MSVC | ~48.60 MB | ~477.30 MB | ~5,280.00 MB | Out of Memory | 
| Circle @ | 53.69 MB | 54.73 MB | 65.88 MB | 176.44 MB | 
| Circle @ | 33.34 MB | 33.34 MB | 39.41 MB | 113.12 MB | 
| (linker) | 17.31 MB | 17.31 MB | 17.31 MB | 57.13 MB | 
| Strategy | 400 megabytes | 1 gigabyte | 
|---|---|---|
| GCC | 3,995.34 MB | 9,795.31 MB | 
| GCC | 1,494.66 MB | 5,279.37 MB | 
| -generated GCC | Out of Memory | Out of Memory | 
| -generated Clang | Out of Memory | Out of Memory | 
| -generated MSVC | Out of Memory | Out of Memory | 
| Circle @ | 1,282.34 MB | 3,199.28 MB | 
| Circle @ | 850.40 MB | 2,128.36 MB | 
| (linker) | 425.77 MB | 1,064.74 MB | 
4.1.3. Results Analysis
The above clearly demonstrates the superiority of @ keyword, but it was added in December 2019. When the compiler author was spoken to about Study Group 7’s aspirations for a more generic way of representing data from a file, the ultimate response was this:
I’ll add a new @embed keyword that takes a type and a file path and loads the file and embeds it into an array prvalue of that type. This will cut out the interpreter and it’ll run at max speed. Feed back like this is good. This is super low-hanging fruit.
It was Circle’s conclusion that a generic API was unsuitable and suffered from the same performance pitfalls that currently plagued current-generation compilers today. And it was SG7’s insistence that a more generic API would be suitable, modeled on Circle’s principles. Given that thorough exploration of the design space in Circle led to the same conclusion this proposal is making, and given the wide variety of languages providing a similar interface (D, Nim, Rust, etc.), it is clear that a more generic API is not desirable for functionality as fundamental and simple as this. This does not preclude a more generic solution being created, but it does prioritize the "Bird in the Hand" approach that the Direction Group and Bjarne Stroustrup have advocated for many times.
Furthermore, inspecting compiler bug reports around this subject area reveal that this is not the first time GCC has suffered monumental memory blowup over unoptimized representation of data. In fact, this is a 16+ year old problem that GCC has been struggling with for a long time now (C++ version here). That the above numbers is nearing the best that can be afforded by some of the most passionate volunteers and experts curating an extremely large codebase should be testament to how hard the language is this area for compiler developers, and how painful it is for regular developers using their tools.
Clang, while having a better data representation and more optimized structures at its disposal, is similarly constrained. With significant implementation work, they are deeply constrained in what they can do:
It might be possible to introduce some sort of optimized representation specifically for initializer lists. But it would be a big departure from existing AST handling. And it wouldn’t really open up new use cases, given that string literal handling is already reasonably efficient.
Is this really the best use of compiler developer energy?
To provide a backdrop against which a big departure from current AST handling in can be compared, an implementation of the built-in necessary for this proposal is -- for an experienced developer -- at most a few day’s work in either GCC or Clang. Other compiler engineers have reported similar ease of implementation and integration. Should this really be delegated to Quality of Implementation that will be need to be solved N times over by every implementation in their own particularly special way? Chipping away at what is essentially a fundamental inefficiency required by C++'s inescapable tokenization model from the preprocessor plus the sheer cost of an ever-growing language that makes simple constructs like a brace initializer list of integer constants expensive is, in this paper’s demonstrated opinion, incredibly unwise.
4.1.4. Manual Work
Many developers also hand-wrap their files in (raw) string literals, or similar to massage their data -- binary or not -- into a conforming representation that can be parsed at source code:
- 
     Have a file data . json 
{ "Hello" : "World!" } 
- 
     Mangle that file with raw string literals, and save it as raw_include_data . h 
R" json({ "Hello": "World!" } )json" 
- 
     Include it into a variable, optionally made constexpr 
#include <iostream>#include <string_view>int main () { constexpr std :: string_view json_view = #include "raw_include_data.h"; // { "Hello": "World!" } std :: cout << json_view << std :: endl ; return 0 ; } 
This happens often in the case of people who have not yet taken the "add a build step" mantra to heart. The biggest problem is that the above C++-ready source file is no longer valid in as its original representation, meaning the file as-is cannot be passed to any validation tools, schema checkers, or otherwise. This hurts the portability and interop story of C++ with other tools and languages.
Furthermore, if the string literal is too big vendors such as VC++ will hard error the build (example from Nonius, benchmarking framework).
4.1.5. Processing Tools
Other developers use pre-processors for data that can’t be easily hacked into a C++ source-code appropriate state (e.g., binary). The most popular one is 
4.1.6. ld 
   Resource files and other "link time" or post-processing measures have one benefit over the previous method: they are fast to perform in terms of compilation time. A example can be seen in the §6.1.3 ld Alternative section.
4.1.7. The incbin 
   There is a tool called [incbin] which is a 3rd party attempt at pulling files in at "assembly time". Its approach is incredibly similar to 
4.2. Prior Art
There has been a lot of discussion over the years in many arenas, from Stack Overflow to mailing lists to meetings with the Committee itself. The latest advancements that had been brought to WG21’s attention was p0373r0 - File String Literals. It proposed the syntax 
4.2.1. Literal-Based, constexpr
A user could reasonably assign (or want to assign) the resulting array to a 
4.2.2. Literal-Based, Null Terminated (?)
It is unclear whether the resulting array of characters or bytes was to be null terminated. The usage and expression imply that it will be, due to its string-like appearance. However, is adding an additional null terminator fitting for desired usage? From the existing tools and practice (e.g., 
4.2.3. Encoding
Because the proposal used a string literal, several questions came up as to the actual encoding of the returned information. The author gave both 
4.3. Design Goals
Because of the aforementioned reasons, it seems more prudent to take a "compiler intrinsic"/"magic function" approach. The function overload takes the form:
template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier ); template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier , size_t limit ); 
4.3.1. Implementation Defined
Calls such as 
There is precedent for specifying library features that are implemented only through compile-time compiler intrinsics (
4.3.2. Binary Only
Creating two separate forms or options for loading data that is meant to be a "string" always fuels controversy and debate about what the resulting contents should be. The problem is sidestepped entirely by demanding that the resource loaded by 
4.3.3. Constexpr Compatibility
The entire implementation must be usable in a 
4.3.4. Optional Limit
Consider some file-based resources that are otherwise un-sizeable and un-seek/tellable in various implementations such as 
4.3.5. Statically Polymorphic
While returning 
5. Changes to the Standard
Wording changes are relative to [n4842].
5.1. Intent
The intent of the wording is to provide a function that:
- 
     handles the provided resource identifying string_view 
- 
     and, returns the specified constexpr span T 
The wording also explicitly disallows the usage of the function outside of a core constant expression by marking it 
5.2. Proposed Feature Test Macro
The proposed feature test macros are 
5.3. Proposed Wording
Append to §14.8.1 Predefined macro names [cpp.predefined]'s Table 16 with one additional entry:
Macro name Value __cpp_pp_depend 202006L 
Add a new section §15.4 Dependency [cpp.depend]:
15.4 Dependency [cpp.depend]1 A
directive establishes inputs or family of inputs upon which a translation unit depends.#depend 2 A preprocessing directive of the form
# depend h-char-sequence< new-line> or
# depend q-char-sequence" new-line" provides a dependency name. If an implementation does not find meaning in the quote-delimited q-char-sequence, it may reprocess this directive and treat it as a
#depend h-char-sequence< new-line directive using the same q-char-sequence, including any> or< .> 3 The q-char-sequence or h-char-sequence may have one of 3 meanings, depending on the use of
or* within the sequence.** 
- – If the sequence contains a
it denotes a dependency-family.* - – Otherwise, if it contains a
it denotes a recursive-dependency-family.** - – Otherwise, it denotes a single-dependency.
A
directive#depend 4 [ Example—
— end Example ].#depend "art.png" // this translation unit depends on 'art.png' #depend "assets /**" // this translation unit depends on all resources // the implementation can find along that start with // "assets/", recursively. #depend <config/*.json>" // this translation unit depends on all resources // the implementation can find that // end in ".json" and start with "config/". #depend <data/*/ *.bin>" // this translation unit depends on all resources // the implementation can find that // end in ".bin", start with "data/" // and contain a single "/" in-between. 5 Each of the dependency-family, recursive-dependency-family, and single-dependency shall have an implementation-defined meaning which establishes search information for implementation-defined resources (e.g., for 19.20 [const.res]).
Append to §16.3.1 General [support.limits.general]'s Table 35 one additional entry:
Macro name Value __cpp_lib_embed 202006L 
Append to §19.1 General [utilities.general]'s Table 38 one additional entry:
Subclause Header(s) 19.20 Constant Resources <embed> 
Add a new section §19.20 Constant Resources [const.res]:
19.20 Constant Resources [const.res]19.20.1 In general [const.res.general]
Constant resources allow the implementation to retrieve data from a variety of sources -- including implementation-defined places -- and allows their processing during constant evaluation.
19.20.2 Header
synopsis [embed.syn]< embed > namespace std { template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier ) noexcept ; template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier , size_t limit ) noexcept ; } 19.20.3 Function template
[const.embed]embed namespace std { template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier ) noexcept ; template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier , size_t limit ) noexcept ; } 1 Mandates: the implementation-defined bit size of the resource is a multiple of
andsizeof ( T ) * CHAR_BIT isstd :: is_trivial_v < T > true. [ Note— This provides that types with non-trivial destructors do not need to be run for the implementation-provided static storage duration objects. — end Note ].2 Returns: A read-only view to a unique resource identified by the
over a contiguous sequence ofresource_identifier objects with static storage duration. The mapping from the contents of the resource to the contiguous sequence ofT objects is implementation-defined.T 3 Ensures:
, wherer . size () <= limit denotes the result of the function call for the second overload.r 4 Remarks: The value of
is used to search a sequence of implementation-defined places for a resource identified uniquely byresource_identifier . If the implementation cannot find the resource specified after exhausting the sequence of implementation-defined search locations, the program is ill-formed. The mapping of the resource to the sequence ofresource_identifier is implementation-defined. [ Note— Implementations should provide a mechanism similar but not identical toT (15.3 [cpp.include]) for finding the specified resource and in coordination with#include (15.4 [cpp.depend]). — end Note ]#depend 
6. Appendix
6.1. Alternative
Other techniques used include pre-processing data, link-time based tooling, and assembly-time runtime loading. They are detailed below, for a complete picture of today’s sad landscape of options.
6.1.1. Pre-Processing Tools Alternative
- 
     Run the tool over the data ( xxd - i xxd_data . bin > xxd_data . h xxd_data . h 
unsigned char xxd_data_bin [] = { 0x48 , 0x65 , 0x6c , 0x6c , 0x6f , 0x2c , 0x20 , 0x57 , 0x6f , 0x72 , 0x6c , 0x64 , 0x0a }; unsigned int xxd_data_bin_len = 13 ; 
- 
     Compile main . cpp 
#include <iostream>#include <string_view>// prefix as constexpr, // even if it generates some warnings in g++/clang++ constexpr #include "xxd_data.h"; template < typename T , std :: size_t N > constexpr std :: size_t array_size ( const T ( & )[ N ]) { return N ; } int main () { static_assert ( xxd_data_bin [ 0 ] == 'H' ); static_assert ( array_size ( xxd_data_bin ) == 13 ); std :: string_view data_view ( reinterpret_cast < const char *> ( xxd_data_bin ), array_size ( xxd_data_bin )); std :: cout << data_view << std :: endl ; // Hello, World! return 0 ; } 
Others still use python or other small scripting languages as part of their build process, outputting data in the exact C++ format that they require.
There are problems with the 
Binary data as C(++) arrays provide the overhead of having to comma-delimit every single byte present, it also requires that the compiler verify every entry in that array is a valid literal or entry according to the C++ language.
This scales poorly with larger files, and build times suffer for any non-trivial binary file, especially when it scales into Megabytes in size (e.g., firmware and similar).
6.1.2. python 
   Other companies are forced to create their own ad-hoc tools to embed data and files into their C++ code. MongoDB uses a custom python script, just to get their data into C++:
import os import sys def jsToHeader ( target , source ) : outFile = target h = [ '#include "mongo/base/string_data.h" ', '#include "mongo/scripting/engine.h" ', 'namespace mongo { ', 'namespace JSFiles { ', ] def lineToChars ( s ) : return ',' . join ( str ( ord ( c )) for c in ( s . rstrip () + '\n' )) + ',' for s in source : filename = str ( s ) objname = os . path . split ( filename )[ 1 ]. split ( '.' )[ 0 ] stringname = '_jscode_raw_ '+ objname h . append ( 'constexpr char '+ stringname + "[] = {" ) with open ( filename , 'r' ) as f : for line in f : h . append ( lineToChars ( line )) h . append ( "0};" ) # symbols aren’t exported w/o this h . append ( 'extern const JSFile % s ; '% objname ) h . append ( 'const JSFile % s = { "%s" , StringData ( % s , sizeof ( % s ) - 1 ) }; '% ( objname , filename . replace ( '\\' , '/' ), stringname , stringname )) h . append ( "} // namespace JSFiles" ) h . append ( "} // namespace mongo" ) h . append ( "" ) text = '\n' . join ( h ) with open ( outFile , 'wb ') as out : try : out . write ( text ) finally : out . close () if __name__ == "__main__" : if len ( sys . argv ) < 3 : "Must specify [target] [source] " sys . exit ( 1 ) jsToHeader ( sys . argv [ 1 ], sys . argv [ 2 : ]) 
MongoDB were brave enough to share their code with me and make public the things they have to do: other companies have shared many similar concerns, but do not have the same bravery. We thank MongoDB for sharing.
6.1.3. ld 
   A full, compilable example (except on Visual C++):
- 
     Have a file ld_data.bin with the contents Hello , World ! 
- 
     Run ld - r binary - o ld_data . o ld_data . bin 
- 
     Compile the following main . cpp c ++ - std = c ++ 17 ld_data . o main . cpp 
#include <iostream>#include <string_view>#ifdef __APPLE__ #include <mach-o/getsect.h>#define DECLARE_LD(NAME) extern const unsigned char _section$__DATA__##NAME[]; #define LD_NAME(NAME) _section$__DATA__##NAME #define LD_SIZE(NAME) (getsectbyname("__DATA", "__" #NAME)->size) #elif (defined __MINGW32__) /* mingw */ #define DECLARE_LD(NAME) \ extern const unsigned char binary_##NAME##_start[]; \ extern const unsigned char binary_##NAME##_end[]; #define LD_NAME(NAME) binary_##NAME##_start #define LD_SIZE(NAME) ((binary_##NAME##_end) - (binary_##NAME##_start)) #else /* gnu/linux ld */ #define DECLARE_LD(NAME) \ extern const unsigned char _binary_##NAME##_start[]; \ extern const unsigned char _binary_##NAME##_end[]; #define LD_NAME(NAME) _binary_##NAME##_start #define LD_SIZE(NAME) ((_binary_##NAME##_end) - (_binary_##NAME##_start)) #endif DECLARE_LD ( ld_data_bin ); int main () { // impossible //static_assert(xxd_data_bin[0] == 'H'); std :: string_view data_view ( reinterpret_cast < const char *> ( LD_NAME ( ld_data_bin )), LD_SIZE ( ld_data_bin ) ); std :: cout << data_view << std :: endl ; // Hello, World! return 0 ; } 
This scales a little bit better in terms of raw compilation time but is shockingly OS, vendor and platform specific in ways that novice developers would not be able to handle fully. The macros are required to erase differences, lest subtle differences in name will destroy one’s ability to use these macros effectively. We ommitted the code for handling VC++ resource files because it is excessively verbose than what is present here.
N.B.: Because these declarations are 
7. Acknowledgements
A big thank you to Andrew Tomazos for replying to the author’s e-mails about the prior art. Thank you to Arthur O’Dwyer for providing the author with incredible insight into the Committee’s previous process for how they interpreted the Prior Art.
A special thank you to Agustín Bergé for encouraging the author to talk to the creator of the Prior Art and getting started on this. Thank you to Tom Honermann for direction and insight on how to write a paper and apply for a proposal.
Thank you to Arvid Gerstmann for helping the author understand and use the link-time tools.
Thank you to Tony Van Eerd for valuable advice in improving the main text of this paper.
Thank you to Lilly (Cpplang Slack, @lillypad) for the valuable bikeshed and hole-poking in original designs, alongside Ben Craig who very thoroughly explained his woes when trying to embed large firmware images into a C++ program for deployment into production. Thank you to Elias Kounen and Gabriel Ravier for wording review.
For all this hard work, it is the author’s hope to carry this into C++. It would be the author’s distinct honor to make development cycles easier and better with the programming language we work in and love. ♥