Hey everyone, I vote to *ACCEPT *Lambda2. I first heard of Lambda2 when Peter asked me how many lines I thought it would take to recreate Boost.Lambda. Naturally, I should've seen this as a loaded question but I guessed a few hundred. Maybe something just below a couple thousand by the time all the dust settles. Peter told me it could be done in ~50 lines. Now I was intrigued. The source code of Lambda2 is wonderfully clever and short. Moreso, sufficiently clever that it's worth not repeating every time we want to use it. Higher-order functions are all the rage in C++ and writing lambdas is cumbersome and annoying. Lambda2 gives us a C++14 solution that relies on nothing else but simple language features and stdlib headers making it faster to compile than older solutions such as Phoenix or the original Lambda. Lambda2 also has the fortune of interop'ing greatly with existing constructs like Boost.HOF and the new `<ranges>` STL header. See: https://godbolt.org/z/hfxfhfEqv Keeping this short, Lambda2 gives us fresh paint over an old technology that we know works and one that (while polarizing in its style) does its job well. I think it ultimately serves Boost and the larger C++ community to keep this Lambda-style of coding alive and well-maintained as C++ evolves. - Christian