On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:31 AM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>

Sounds like we're talking about different sets of minutes. Let's take it
offline.


>
> 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.
>