Martin Sebor wrote: > >Travis Vitek wrote: >> >>> Eric Lemings wrote: >>> >>> Page 490, section 20.3.1.2, paragraph 1 in the latest draft >>> says this: >>> >>> "Let Ui be decay<Ti>::type for each Ti in Types. Then each >>> Vi in Vtypes is X& if Ui equals reference_wrapper<X>, >>> otherwise Vi is Ui." >>> >>> What do you suppose the relationship is between type `X' >>> and types `Ti' and `Ui'? I see how the latter two types >>> are deduced from the type list `Types' but not so sure >>> about how type `X' is deduced from `Types'. >> >> I'm looking at this and I have no idea where VTypes and X are coming >> from. Is that an issue, or am I missing something? > >Have you found an issue for any of this? (If not, we/I will >need to open one.) >
I don't see one. Unless Brad knows something that we don't, I think it should be brought up. >Martin > >> >> That said, I think X is supposed to be Ti. If that were the case then >> the definition would make some sense [at least to me]. >> >> Let Ui be decay<Ti>::type for each Ti in Types. Then each >> Vi in VTypes is Ti& if Ui equals reference_wrapper<Ti>, >> otherwise Vi is Ui. >> >> If that is right, then it essentially says that the 'make_tuple' >> function transforms reference_wrapper<T> back to T& and for >other types >> does the normal decay transformation [function to funciton pointer, >> array to array pointer, and cv-stripping of all other types]. >> >> Travis >> >>> Brad. >>> > >
