On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 14:32, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> 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