On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 17:38, Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One more syntax proposal that extends P1985's unkiversal template
> parameter: `template auto`
>
> 1. allow `template auto` in any deduced context, for example
> `vector<template auto> vec = get_vec();`
> 2. use the syntax `template<class T> auto` to introduce the name `T`.
>

Again, syntax. How on earth do you parse this? `template auto` in P1985's
usage is fine, since it's just alternate for *template-parameter* (or
*type-parameter*), with an alternation on the token `template` with
*template-head* resolved immediately at the next token (`auto` vs. `<`).
`vector<auto>` is similarly fine, since `auto` is already a
*simple-type-specifier*, so that's just a semantic relaxation.

template<class T> auto x = foo()
> vector<template<class V> auto> v = get_vec()
>
> Some extra stuff:
> * Introducing a name is optional, you can use `template<class> auto` for a
> type placeholder, instead of a universal one
> * you can have nttp or template placeholders too
>
> std::array<string, template<size_t arr_size> auto> arr = get_arr();
>
> A bit verbose compared to my previously proposed auto<class T>. Honestly,
> I like that more, but I could live with this.
>
> I definitely wouldn't want a syntax where you are required to immediately
> repeat the introduced name.
>

Repeating the name means that you can specify its kind (type, class
template, value, etc.) and easily see which names are introduced into scope.

I really don't see the necessity to golf everything; C++ is already
notoriously hard to parse and you want to make it even harder?


> Cheers,
> Lénárd
>
> On 30 September 2022 15:01:58 BST, Edward Catmur via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>