1. Revision History
1.1. Revision 3 - November 26th, 2018
Change to using 
1.2. Revision 2 - October 10th, 2018
Destroy 
1.3. Revision 1 - June 10th, 2018
Create future directions section, follow up on Library Evolution Working Group comments.
Change 
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 
1.4. 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 | 
|---|---|
| 
 
 | 
 | 
Every 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; and 
 
- 
       
- 
     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). 
 
- 
       
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.
MongoDB has been kind enough to share some of their code below. Other companies have had their example code anonymized or simply not included directly out of shame for the things they need to do to support their workflows. The author thanks MongoDB for their courage and their support for 
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.
4.1.1. 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).
4.1.2. 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 
4.1.3. 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 Sadness section.
4.1.4. 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 takes the form:
template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier ); 
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. Statically Polymorphic
While returning 
5. Changes to the Standard
Wording changes are relative to [n4762].
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 macro is 
5.3. Proposed Wording
Append to §16.3.1 General [support.limits.general]'s Table 35 one additional entry:
Macro name Value __cpp_lib_embed 201811L 
Append to §19.1 General [utilities.general]'s Table 38 one additional entry:
Subclause Header(s) 19.20 Compile-time Resources <embed> 
Add a new section §19.20 Compile-time Resources [const.res]:
19.20 Compile-time Resources [const.res]19.20.1 In general [const.res.general]
Compile-time resources allow the implementation to retrieve data into a program from implementation-defined sources.
19.20.2 Header
synopsis [embed.syn]embed namespace std { template < typename T > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier ) noexcept ; } 19.20.3 Function
[embed.embed]embed namespace std { template < typename T = byte > consteval span < const T > embed ( string_view resource_identifier ) noexcept ; } 1 Constraints:
shall satisfyT . [Note— This constraint ensures that types with non-trivial destructors do not need to be run for the compiler-provided unknown storage. — end Note].std :: is_trivial_v < T > 2 Returns: A contiguous sequence of
representing the resource provided by the implementation.T 3 Remarks: Accepts a
whose value is used to search a sequence of implementation-defined places for a resource identified uniquely by the resource identifier specified by thestring_view argument. The entire contents are made available as a contiguous sequence ofstring_view in the returnedT . If the implementation cannot find the resource specified after exhausting the sequence of implementation-defined search locations, the implementation shall error. [Note— Implementations should provide a mechanism similar to include paths to find the specified resource. — end Note]span 
6. Appendix
6.1. Sadness
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 Sadness
- 
     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.
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. ♥