On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 16:48, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > I don't understand what you mean by "check identifier_of, get the reflection,
> > then cast away the access bits".
> > That doesn't describe P2996. And even with P3451, the dependency to the
> > types and cardinalities forms easily, without any help from that proposal,
> > because you do not need to splice things to form such a dependency.
>
> Do you have an example of such accidental dependency on types and
> cardinalities forming?

An in-the-wild one, or an illustrative one? For the first, no - such
examples will present themselves
if we ship the facility without access-obeying listing queries. But if
we ship it with them, it's possible
to categorically avoid such examples, by using the access-obeying
listing queries.

For an illustrative one, it's far too easy to perform a SoA<=>AoS
transformation on a type
that doesn't actually expose those types and cardinalities, when most
of your types are actually all-public structs
and then you manage to throw not-all-public classes into the mix.