I think at the very least giving a name to the language feature you're using enables the reader to research it on his or her own.
Ivan Cukic wrote:What do you mean under "scan"?
The idea here was to say that the standard does not require comilers to perform TCO, but that most of them do.

This issue is that "while" as you're using it requires a contrasting phrase in the same sentence as the main idea. As currently written, it's split into two sentences which are both incomplete.

Something like the following would work:
The C++ standard makes no guarantees that tail-call optimization will be performed. However, most modern compilers, including GCC, Clang and MSVC, support this.
It's not apparent where append_name_ff is getting the function filter. Should append_name_ff have filter passed to it as an argument and then return a lambda to handle the folding?
This aside on tail-call optimizations doesn't quite scan:
While the C++ standard does not guarantee that the tail-call optimization will be performed. Not even for the simplest cases, most of the popular compilers like GCC, Clang and MSVC do perform it.
Would welcome Clojure as a supported language.
Section 8.5.1. The following sentence probably does express the authors' intent:

"However, just because typical anaphorics are limited, that is not to say they are not entirely useless."