On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 2:30 AM mauro russo <ing.russomauro_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> > I imagine Herb Sutter (herb.sutter_at_[hidden]) either can edit that page
> or knows who can edit it.
>
> About p2 for the list of three things,
> I am setting up in order to open an issue and attach a PR as you had
> previously suggested,
>
>
> >> p2: states that 'optionally_constrainted auto' may be in a
> decl-specifiers
> >> doubt A) -> it might better specify that it is intended for the
> parameter,
> >> e.g., not for a nested parameter within the function type of the
> >> initial parameter:
> >> void func(int (*pf)(auto p2) );
> >> as this would mimic a kind of template template paramer (based
> >> on the well clear Note 1 of p2), which is not an object.
>
> > If you have a concrete wording suggestion,
> > please open an issue at https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues
> > so CWG can discuss it.
>
> ok, I will integrate in the issue-PR for p2 above.
> Anyway, for any new topic, I will first discuss here.
>
>
> > I suppose "(see below)" may not be strictly needed.
> > Or perhaps there is a reason for it that I'm not aware of.
>
> I may include in the aforemention issue-PR about p2.
>
>
> > It appears that the examples already cover p3 and p4.
> > Are you requesting examples for p2?
>
> Ok, I agree that p3 and p4 are covered, but p4 is partially.
> I mean, no example with a function declaration and auto
> in trailing.
> And, yes, I was asking to cover also p2.
>
>
> Do you believe that moving p3 before p2 will help ?
> I see it as a more general case compared to specific
> cases of parameter, function, variable.
>
> I honestly don't see why it would make a difference.


>
> And, as minor, when p2 and p5 refer a trailing, they
> might specifiy to consider the sub-case of functor
> declarator. I say 'minor' because it should also be
> obvious (for experts).
>
>
Not sure what you mean by that. What is the wording clarification you want
here?


>
> If you agree with any of these three aspects above,
> I may include what you agree withing the issue-PR that
> you suggested about p2 wording.
>
>
>
> As last. do you still confirm the same opinion about
> trailing return type -> trailing-return-type
> in [class.conv.fct]-p3
> even if it is the unique case over all the
> standard without dashes ?
>
>
I gave my opinion earlier in the thread but I think it's up to the editor.


>
> Thank you.
>
>>

-- 
*Brian Bi*