On 5/2/23 12:13 PM, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Regardless of the polls, politics or history: I think the underlying
> design principle should be that: a type, a concept and auto should be
> interchangeable. All three are sets of types.

That is factually incorrect. A concept is not a type; a concept may be
defined so as to constrain types, values, templates, or combinations
thereof. The concept auto syntax does in fact name a constrained type
(given an appropriately defined concept).

Tom.

> A type represents the set of types of size one that includes only that
> type. A concept represents the set of all types that conform to the
> concepts requirements. auto represents the set of all types (aka the
> anything concept or the wildcard concept). All three should be able
> to appear syntactically wherever one can appear, and to mean "one of
> the types of this set of types". The implications of that should be
> secondary.
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 1:42 AM Barry Revzin via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
>