Sent from my Galaxy

You have been the one who wanted to different types with decltype and effective_decltype. Why are you complaining?The correct answer in your example must be in the following form:// one plausible mangled namePFvvE_i <--- f<int>PFvvE_d <--- f<double>the radix PFvvE is the same denoting the same apparent type, and different tags { _i, _d }, to denote the effective type.Likewise, the type information is not lost. And you can trace back to what you have called.Anyway, I think we touched everything in this thread, and thanks to you and Tiago i found a corner case, but solved it.I think it is time to compile some wording and post it here, maybe it will be more clear.-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----Von: organicoman <organicoman_at_[hidden]>Gesendet: Mi 31.07.2024 10:50Betreff: Re: [std-proposals] Function overload set type information lossAn: Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>; CC: Sebastian Wittmeier <wittmeier_at_[hidden]>; body { font-family: monospace; } With function pointers you can achieve something like; in most cases even this is only possible at runtime: PFvvE <--| do you see the problem herePFvvE <--| f<int>,f<double>, yet the same nameJust one function f.Just one function f.f<double>f<int>In "type theory" that's not correct.Two entity of different signature must have different types. Otherwise a many to one relationship takes place.