On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 9:19 PM Patrice Roy via Lib <lib_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 17:47, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 20:53, Barath Kannan <barathwaj.kannan_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Which is why I'm inclined to agree with Arthur that people should just
>>> write their own erasure abstractions (and if possible, the standard should
>>> try to offer tools to make this easier) rather than standardising things
>>> like inplace_function and any_invocable.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. std::function doesn't work well for everybody, but neither will
>> whatever else we come up with. The standard library can't cover every use
>> case.
>>
>
> I understand that.
> The SG14 requests we are discussing these days form a somehow coherent
> whole, which I hope to turn into a somewhat coherent set of papers (not a
> request for ponies, hopefully). It might take a couple of meetings for us
> to decide the extent of this set of papers.
> The aforementioned inplace_function<T,Sz> would be part of that [...]
>

I'd be interested to hear (perhaps off-list) whether anyone is actually
using
https://github.com/WG21-SG14/SG14/blob/master/SG14/inplace_function.h
https://github.com/Quuxplusone/SG14/blob/ajo/include/sg14/inplace_function.h
as a third-party (or vendored) dependency in real life. The first criterion
for "should it be in the standard" is always "are people already wanting to
use it," and so far I haven't seen clear evidence (in the form of bug
reports, feature requests, etc.) that anyone is actually using these things
as they exist today.

my $.02,
–Arthur