On Tue, May 2, 2023, 8:05 AM Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 14:32, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > They added this auto nonsense at the last minute
>
> The slight problem with that claim is that it's incorrect; the
> constrained-deduced syntax wasn't added at the last minute.
> The other problem is that while you're entitled to calling whatever
> you like nonsense, there are significant technical
> advantages to the approach we ended up choosing (Nota Bene: this "we"
> excludes the author of the email I'm responding
> to, as he wasn't a participant in any of it, so feel free to take his
> reports on what happened and why with a modicum
> of suspicion, as it's not based on first-hand experience), so there
> are plausible reasons to think that it's far from nonsense.
>

+1


> > Most think that's silly and not worth fouling up the syntax
>
> The slight problem with this claim is that it has no evidence backing it.
>

+1.

For instance, in Jacksonville there was a poll for the Concepts TS syntax
with independent binding - that is: void f(Concept, Concept) can take two
different types. That poll was 23-15-26.

There was another poll for independent binding plus some unspecified syntax
indicating that the function is a template. That result was 40-16-11.

Hard to interpret that as "most think it's silly."

Barry

>