On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 5:02 PM Robert A.H. Leahy wrote:
>
> If you prevent Hasher from hashing the elider what does
> that mean for classes that do want to accept elide objects
> as constructor arguments?


Robert you had the idea of forbidding only the CTAD, so that the
following would fail:

    Hasher myhasher( myelider );

but the following would succeed when you spell out the template
parameter type explicitly:

    Hasher< elide<Hasher(void)> > myhasher( myelider );

This might be a good solution.


> I don't think making poorly-designed classes work is a
> problem worth solving. Those classes should be updated/redesigned.


But these classes have only been determined to be "poorly-designed"
after we've invented our fancy new feature "std::elide". Prior to the
invention of "std::elide", these classes weren't poorly designed. We
can't just introduce a new feature and be like, "You're in Texas now
kid".

So we have two options:
    (1) Tell everyone, "Tough luck, you need to change your class"
    (2) Make a core language change so that they don't need to change
their class

I think it should be No. 2. But the debate goes on as to what this
core language change should be.