There's another concise way of expressing template regions (see P3525)
in terms of expansion statements:

```
int foo() {
  template for (auto _:"") {
    // ...
  }
}
```
might want to hide that behind a macro for the time being ;)

On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 3:03 PM Артём Колпаков via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> It's pretty weird. IMO, the simpler case for non-expert usage does not work. But, thank you, now I know what to do.
>
> template for (auto _ : {0}) {
> auto &&[...elems] = ::std::move(tuple);
> use(::std::move(elems)...);
> }
>
> ср, 4 февр. 2026 г. в 16:12, Brian Bi <bbi5291_at_[hidden]>:
>>
>> The body of an expansion statement is treated as if it's part of a template (e.g. you have to put `typename` in various places). If a structured binding pack could appear outside a template, it would force the entire remainder of the current scope to be treated as a template.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 8:05 AM Артём Колпаков via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good afternoon. Why can't the structured binding pack be used outside of the template, whereas the expansion statement can. It seems to me that for tuple-like types there is no significant difference between these language features, but to use the first one, you have to use a synthetic template where there is no real one. Is this a language defect?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the documents say about this. I am writing immediately after observing the error on goldbolt.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your attention.
>>> Artyom Kolpakov
>>> --
>>> Std-Discussion mailing list
>>> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian Bi
>
> --
> Std-Discussion mailing list
> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion