On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 7:32 PM Lénárd Szolnoki wrote:
>
> std::optional has a single argument constructor that
> shouldn't be constrained away for std::elide. In fact
> std::elide is similarly useful to this constructor than
> to emplace.


Should there be two forms of "std::elide"? One with failure, on without failure?

    std::elide -- fails to be the sole parameter to a constructor
    std::elide_nofail -- does not fail to be the sole parameter to a constructor

Or instead of creating two distinct classes, they could be the same
template class but with a bool template parameter:

    std::elide<false> -- fails
    std::elide<true> -- does not fail