220 13500 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Generalizing the equivalence of auto and template type deduction Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:35:58 +0300 Lines: 29 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <0bf78c13-6ee2-4a9a-9de5-5ce2dc0e5a66@isocpp.org> <3cc36209-3837-4b00-a976-123e01d25a72@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412242572 32523 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2014 09:36:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:36:12 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRB75YWSQQKGQE63AKZIQ@isocpp.org Thu Oct 02 11:36:05 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com ([209.85.218.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XZcno-0008R5-Ob for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:36:00 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id a141sf7862901oig.1 for ; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=n6KTXLxflUGKBbONcrRaZUlZv1C2eJJxwWHgH5A7nes=; b=AbfbazWtEbhlygZPUM4OS6C6OxQPaViXPZEZzfCXAdBzGvdnizz6iGV4btXFmf8Up+ +jMrsO0MW857/3IfVtv1PzzYMgN4irmHEw8E50EvJYw+zcXtsbtaSNcPViEM6rkOXskJ iJ4BenCWcrpXR6QNlF6KXr0fTggJnCQUGqZMDU1ya5QkJAHYJ/W31ZAJwbl7ZMVw7hF+ KtRabUhcwjeGeMpMd6pjoe2rBlvGfFKZ4PQ/m+eP0RhX8YPckAXzHBOIycpZ7bKjtbJU dQhabxSq1T7kU8Lu9JDMNXJ6KZPiKVAJGFrKXGzYBabKrBL7I6YX+pJRuBYAvjqAXNvJ aBjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmtBHHygjU4YqNZdG1RWGNycLSCr/+cvZYu7M7frsQB2hrEKnUjRJOz60wiUGU1bheTda3v X-Received: by 10.50.134.137 with SMTP id pk9mr1463951igb.0.1412242559743; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.224.165 with SMTP id rd5ls356176obc.8.gmail; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.99.102 with SMTP id ep6mr27998885oeb.65.1412242559041; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k4si6347109oen.47.2014.10.02.02.35.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233; Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e131so1613755oig.10 for ; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.58.36 with SMTP id n4mr28101653oeq.73.1412242558964; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.24.198 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 02:35:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3cc36209-3837-4b00-a976-123e01d25a72@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:13500 Archived-At: On 2 October 2014 12:29, Tomasz wrote: > Sorry, I misunderstood your point. > > I think with use of concepts as placeholders we can still require different > type. Let assume that we have concept Different Type, could probably > write: > std::pair> f =..; > but I would say that the programmer should specify types explicitly in that > case. Fully agreed. > Also for the examples were pair used in the function: We already > have a longer notation that would allow us to a specify constrained case, so > there is not need to cover that in shorthand notation. Again agreed. And you can specify the constraints by specifying them on decltype(foo.first) and decltype(foo.second), if you really really want. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .