On 12 May 2024 08:34:01 BST, Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

The proposed syntax is a bit misleading because the type is still a
std::pair, not an int. Something like what Tiago wrote would make sense,
where you can specify a type per bound name.

However, I don't think implicit conversions would be appropriate here, so
the rules would be different from a variable in the sense that you would
always need to specify the type exactly. That also makes this whole thing a
bit less powerful and useful though.

Maybe you could specify a concept per element.

auto [same_as<int> x, same_as<double> y] = ...

Discussions in the past have suggested using the return-type-requirement syntax from compound requires expressions for this.

auto [x -> same_as<int>, y -> same_as<double>] = ...

Tom.

On Sat, May 11, 2024, 08:59 Oliver Schädlich via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

If all variables of a structured binding are the same I think structured
binding without type inference would improve the readability.

    pair<int, int> pii;
    int &[a, b] = pii;

Or:

    pair<int, char> pic;
    int [a, b] = pic;



--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals