# \[Done\] Should a Beman library need to specify the paper revision in the README.md?

**URL:** <https://discourse.bemanproject.org/t/done-should-a-beman-library-need-to-specify-the-paper-revision-in-the-readme-md/526>\
**Category:** Beman Project Development\
**Created:** [September 14, 2025, 12:50am UTC](https://discourse.bemanproject.org/t/done-should-a-beman-library-need-to-specify-the-paper-revision-in-the-readme-md/526 "2025-09-14T00:50:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ednolan](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.bemanproject.org/ednolan/32/131_2.png) [@ednolan](https://discourse.bemanproject.org/u/ednolan)\
**Post date:** [September 14, 2025, 12:50am UTC](https://discourse.bemanproject.org/t/done-should-a-beman-library-need-to-specify-the-paper-revision-in-the-readme-md/526/1 "2025-09-14T00:50:51Z")

</div>

Both beman-tidy and the Beman standard reject this line from `any_view`:

**Implements** : `std::ranges::any_view` proposed in [any\_view (P3411)](https://wg21.link/p3411).

The rejection is because the paper revision is absent, so if it said any\_view (P3411R3) we would accept it. I think this is too strict.

Here are my pull requests against the Beman standard:

> <https://github.com/bemanproject/beman/pull/174>

And beman-tidy:

> <https://github.com/bemanproject/infra/pull/193>
>
> Allow omitting the revision number from the "implements" line in the README.md.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ednolan](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.bemanproject.org/ednolan/32/131_2.png) [@ednolan](https://discourse.bemanproject.org/u/ednolan)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2025, 4:56pm UTC](https://discourse.bemanproject.org/t/done-should-a-beman-library-need-to-specify-the-paper-revision-in-the-readme-md/526/2 "2025-09-18T16:56:42Z")

</div>

These pull requests have been approved and merged. Thanks for the reviews!