Hi,

n3876.pdf has the following example:


template <typename Ty>
void func(Ty *ptr, Ty val);

_Optional int *ptr = foo();
func(ptr, 12);


as an example why the qualifier is at the "wrong" position
and this would cause problems for C++. It states

"When the qualifier is correctly associated with the pointer
rather than the pointee, the semantics work as a C++ programmer
would expect and Ty would deduce unambiguously to int"

But if you replace "_Optional" with "const" the example also fails
deduce unambigously. So is "const" also in the wrong location?

Can somebody explain me what the authors mean?


Martin