On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 14:19, Oleksandr Koval <
oleksandr.koval.dev_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Sorry if this was already discussed, I like `auto<class T>` syntax but the
> problem I see is this:
>
> std::vector<int> f();
> auto<class T> v = f(); // should T be `std::vector<int>` or just `int`?
>

That syntax would work as a 2-step process: first you declare entities,
then deduce them. The declaration and deduction should be pretty much the
same as for (non-terse) function templates.

So T is repeated:

auto<class T> T v = f();

or

auto<class T> std::vector<T> v = f();

or

auto<template<class> class TT, class T> TT<T> v = f();


It’s a bit confusing when you see them side by side. Because of that I
> don’t think that using angle brackets is a good idea (at least I can’t find
> any form which is not confusing). We need a new syntax which will clearly
> show that typename(s) is closely related to `auto` itself. For example:
>
> auto:[class T] v = f();
> auto:[class T1, classT2] [key, value] = get_pair();
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:07 AM Edward Catmur via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 21:44, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 3:57 PM Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Proposals <
>>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 September 2022 20:25:06 BST, Edward Catmur <
>>>> ecatmur_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> >On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 18:15, Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Proposals <
>>>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I think this could be addressed by two distinct proposals.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 1. allow placeholders to appear in any deduced context
>>>> (std::vector<auto>)
>>>> >> 2. allow a placeholder to introduce a name (auto<class T>, auto<int
>>>> i>
>>>> >> might appear as a deduced nttp)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Then you can have your vector<auto<class T>> to deduce the value
>>>> type and
>>>> >> introduce the name T for that.
>>>> >
>>>> >std::vector<auto> is problematic, because elsewhere auto means a value
>>>> of
>>>> >unconstrained type (e.g. in template<auto>).
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. auto is a placeholder for the type of the non-type
>>>> parameter. If you don't omit the name, then that name refers to the value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I tend to agree with Lénárd here: `auto *p, std::unique_ptr<auto>
>>> q` seems quite reasonable to me.
>>>
>>
>> Ye-esss; looking at the grammar; `auto` is always a
>> placeholder-type-specifier, which is a simple-type-specifier, so it makes
>> sense that it takes the place of a concrete (or inferred) type.
>>
>> So Lénárd, I apologise; you're correct that in these contexts `auto`
>> designates a type, not a value. I'm still trying to get my head round
>> "template<auto> int f();", but the syntax is clear.
>>
>> *However*, I foresee practical problems with allowing auto *anywhere* in
>>> a declaration. Consider
>>> template<class T> void f(T t); // since C++98
>>> template<class T> void g(decltype(T(1)) t); // since C++11
>>> void f(auto t); // since C++20, equivalent to f #1
>>> void g(decltype(auto(1)) t); // since C++23, *not* equivalent to g
>>> #1
>>>
>>> Now, the `T` parameter to `g` is not deducible, so "obviously" the
>>> `auto` in g #2 doesn't mean the same thing as the `auto` in f #2. But are
>>> you sure we can teach that to the computer?
>>>
>>> (Background: I teach that `auto` since C++14 has (like most C++
>>> keywords) had two meanings: concrete type *inference*, as in auto x =
>>> 1, and templatey type *deduction*, as in [](auto x){}. The physical
>>> mechanisms behind, and consequences of, these two usages of `auto` are
>>> vastly different, although their human-level meaning is similar: "I don't
>>> want to bother with types; compiler, please figure it out." So if you see
>>> me talking about "inference" versus "deduction," or "the first meaning of
>>> auto" versus "the second meaning of auto," that's what I'm talking about.)
>>>
>>
>> The deduction process is ultimately the same; both end up in
>> temp.deduct.call. In an abbreviated function template or generic lambda,
>> the deduction can be overridden by explicit template argument, but that's a
>> relatively minor effect. And syntactically, they're the same; a
>> decl-specifier of a decl-specifier-seq (of a function parameter or variable
>> declaration); `auto` in a function return type or trailing return type has
>> less in common, though I'd suppose you'd class that as inference. Still, I
>> guess it's OK to teach it that way.
>>
>> It would certainly *not* be reasonable to have a rule like "Try to
>>> interpret every `auto` as deduction, but if that would result in a
>>> non-deducible template parameter, then backtrack and assume it's inference
>>> instead." It would be reasonable to have a rule that boils down to "Inside
>>> the operand of a decltype or sizeof or array bound, the `auto` always means
>>> inference not deduction." But is `g` above the *only* problem case?
>>> Are there other corner cases where `auto` is already legal today, and/or we
>>> wouldn't want it to mean a template parameter?
>>> void f(A<auto(int())>); // is this concrete A<0> or templatey
>>> A<T(int())>? I guess the type of A will disambiguate...
>>>
>>
>> Currently a placeholder can appear as the decl-specifier of a function
>> parameter, variable declaration, or template parameter or, as exactly one
>> simple-type-specifier of a return or trailing return type,
>> conversion function id, new expression's type id, or (`auto` only) as the
>> type specifier of a functional cast. If these were relaxed, I think we'd
>> probably be OK; you just go through inventing extra type template
>> parameters and perform deduction as usual.
>>
>> Also I don't think ambiguity *can* be an issue, or it would be already;
>> there must be disambiguators in the syntax. Indeed, I have a strong
>> suspicion that your `A<auto(int())>` is a most vexing parse.
>>
>> Also consider that while
>>> void h1(std::vector<auto, auto> v);
>>> would work fine with Lénárd's proposed syntax,
>>> void h2(std::array<auto, ??> a);
>>> would not. That does seem mildly problematic. However, maybe it's
>>> consistent with C++20, which permits
>>> template<class T> concept Integral = true;
>>> template<Integral T> void ij(); // since C++20
>>> but not
>>> template<int N> concept Odd = true;
>>> template<Odd N> void ij(); // error: Odd does not constrain a type
>>>
>>
>> Yes, fair enough; this does conform to the grammar.
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Oleksandr Koval.
>