Is the example well formed? That is should the call f(C<int>{}) succeed?

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022, 15:35 Anoop Rana, <ranaanoop986_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I was working with parameter packs when I noticed that one such case(given
> below) doesn't compile in msvc but compiles fine in gcc and clang. Here is
> the link for the verification of the same: link to demo
> <https://godbolt.org/z/6hf7Ys1Tz>
>
> The code is as follows:
>
> template<typename T> struct C{};
> template<typename T> void f(C<T>){
> }template<typename... T> void f(C<T...>){
> }int main(){
> f(C<int>{}); //Should this call succeed? }
>
> I want to know if the above example is well-formed according to the
> standard. I mean should the call *f(C<int>{}); *succeed by choosing the
> first overload version `*void f(C<T>)*` over the second version.
>
> For possible explanation i looked at examples given in:
> temp.deduct.type#9.2
> <https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4861/temp.deduct.type#9.2>:
> [Example
>
> template<class T1, class... Z> class S; // #1template<class T1, class... Z> class S<T1, const Z&...> { }; // #2template<class T1, class T2> class S<T1, const T2&> { }; // #3
> S<int, const int&> s; // both #2 and #3 match; #3 is more specialized
>
> End Example]
>
> My current understanding/intuition is that the example that I gave here <https://godbolt.org/z/6hf7Ys1Tz> should be valid as well and the first overload should be chosen over the second.
>
> *If so*, should this or a similar example be added in temp.deduct.type to make this more clear?
> Basically I want to know if the intention for the same(i.e., for allowing the example that i gave) was always there but was not clearly conveyed. If not, then is there a clause that clear disallows
>
> the example that i gave which i missed to notice/understand.
>
>