On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:46 AM Anoop Rana via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I was reading temp.arg.explicit
> <https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4868/temp.arg.explicit#4> and
> noticed that there may be some defect in the wording there. [...]
>
>
> *If all of the template arguments can be deduced, they may all be omitted;
> in this case, the empty template argument list <> itself may also be
> omitted.
> <https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4868/temp.arg.explicit#4.sentence-3>
> "*
>
> *If all of the template arguments can be deduced or obtained from default
> template arguments, they may all be omitted; in this case, the empty
> template argument list <> itself may also be omitted.
> <https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4868/temp.arg.explicit#4.sentence-3>*
>

FWIW, I agree with your reasoning, and this looks like what we call an
"editorial change" (as opposed to a feature), for which the correct venue
is not a WG21 paper but simply a GitHub pull request to fix the "typo." I
encourage you to open a pull request at
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pulls

In this case IMO you don't even really need to repeat your detailed
reasoning there; the target audience will instantly understand the point of
this change. :) They may be able to find a subtle reason the current
wording is correct (e.g. if your addition is subtly implied by some other
wording elsewhere), but I think there's a very good chance that this
editorial change would simply be accepted.

(Note for other readers: GitHub pull requests are totally *not* appropriate
for changes to the *intent* of the Standard, such as new features; those
require a paper. Pull requests are appropriate for simple typos,
code-formatting typos, English-grammar nits, and other small non-functional
editorial changes, such as this one, where the intent is to make the
existing wording better match the *existing intent*.)

my $.02,
–Arthur