On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 16:23, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I don't think the degree to which I personally participated in anything is of interest to anyone - my statement is based on the official minutes of the meeting where requiring auto was suggested and voted on.

In that case, I find your description of what happened and why an
astonishing portrayal of telepathic skills, because
the official minutes of that meeting contain a poll with unanimous
consent without any discussion. But since telepathy
doesn't actually exist, I found it reasonable to point out that your
description should be taken with skepticism, since
it's making statements where you talk about things you can't plausibly
know much about.

But as mentioned, it's not relevant to this paper. This paper is not
proposing to overrule prior decisions, it's an attempt at a friendly
extension on top of what's in the standard now. Sadly, for unnamed
non-reference/pointer parameters, it seems to run into the same
problem as
the suggestion to be able to omit 'auto' in polymorphic lambdas did.
void (Concept S); can mean either a parameter satisfying Concept,
introducing type S, or a parameter with type Concept, named S.