I considered that, but a lot of their comment seems to be about changing the class's behaviour to reflect the functionality they were expecting, rather than just giving it a different name. Especially this bit:

> I would've thought that the C++ template class would be just a marker interface to use on a monostate, so that users of the class know that it has shared state.

Also, if that's what they really meant then they surely could've have written a far sorter comment that simply says this name is already taken and it should be called something else. They don't seem to be saying that at all.

(Not that it affects my original point, but FWIW that linked meaning of monostate isn't common in my experience, and it sounds like a truly awful idea: if your state is really good then be honest about it and use free functions. So it hardly seems worth reserving a useful word for it over the concept std::monostate is actually about.)

BTW I saw your deleted reply about the point of monostate, thanks. For something that has to implement an existing interface, I can see the possible benefit.

Yeah I actually haven’t used the pattern much myself, so I started to doubt the relevance. Once you start having multiple separate monostates implementing the same interface, and also limit their creation/instantiation in the sense that the code that uses the monostate objects is separate from the code that creates them, the difference to regular objects/classes becomes a bit murky.