Skip to content

P2347 Argument type deduction for non-trailing parameter packs #1055

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wg21bot opened this issue Jun 26, 2021 · 7 comments
Open

P2347 Argument type deduction for non-trailing parameter packs #1055

wg21bot opened this issue Jun 26, 2021 · 7 comments
Labels
EWG Evolution needs-revision Paper needs changes before it can proceed

Comments

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator

wg21bot commented Jun 26, 2021

P2347R0 Argument type deduction for non-trailing parameter packs (Corentin Jabot, Bruno Manganelli)

@wg21bot wg21bot added the EWG Evolution label Jun 26, 2021
@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2021-telecon milestone Jun 26, 2021
@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wg21bot commented Jul 30, 2021

P2347R1 Argument type deduction for non-trailing parameter packs (Corentin Jabot, Bruno Manganelli)

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wg21bot commented Oct 26, 2021

P2347R2 Argument type deduction for non-trailing parameter packs (Corentin Jabot, Bruno Manganelli)

@jfbastien
Copy link
Collaborator

This was see on the 2021-08-04 EWG telecon.


POLL: as proposed in the paper, support deduced non-terminal pack followed by a parameter with a default argument, for example:

	void log(string_view formatString, auto&&...args, source_location loc = source_location::current());

SF F N A SA
1 4 6 0 0

Result: consensus.


POLL: we’re interested in seeing an update to P2347r1, knowing that time is limited.

SF F N A SA
1 5 3 0 0

Result: consensus.

@jfbastien jfbastien added the needs-revision Paper needs changes before it can proceed label Aug 14, 2022
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed this from the 2022-telecon milestone Jan 25, 2023
@DanielStutzbach
Copy link

This was labeled as needs-revision based on the 2021-08-04 EWG telecon evaluation of P2347r1. In 2021-10, P2347r2 was published. Is further revision needed? What are the next steps for P2347?

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented May 4, 2024

@jfbastien , that comment seems accurate: Your update to this issue was way later than the publication of the R2. What's the status here?

@tahonermann
Copy link
Collaborator

@cor3ntin, is the status of the issue correct? needs-revision is set, but I don't see any indication that P2347R2 has been reviewed.

@cor3ntin
Copy link

yes, it could use a revision. I am not sure r2 was presented but it's not the correct direction anyway.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
EWG Evolution needs-revision Paper needs changes before it can proceed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants