-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 748
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
Why do deduction guides for take_view and drop_view have different constraints? LWG 3447 #3997
Comments
I believe the presence or absence (and the spelling) of associated constraints influences partial ordering, before the shape of the target type is even considered. So, this does not appear to be an editorial change. @CaseyCarter , @jwakely ? |
|
It looks like that
|
P1035 constrains TLDR: Changing this would have no normative effect, but it falls into that grey area where we need experts to attest to that. I suggest filing an LWG issue. |
Handled by LWG3447. |
This can be closed. |
In [range.take.view], the deduction guide for
take_view
is declared as:In [range.drop.view], the deduction guide for
drop_view
is declared as:Note the difference between their template parameter lists.
AFAIK there's no difference in effect, because
views::all_t
only accepts aviewable_range
.Can they be declared in a more similar way?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: