On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Ville Voutilainen < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 18:15, Barry Revzin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I find it rather plausible that a simplicity-seeking programmer will > >> just not provide a structured-bindings > >> interface that he also wants to allow calling via ADL outside > >> structured bindings when an implementation > >> of P0846 is not available. > > I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Is the claim that being unable > to write get<0>(e) is a reason for somebody to avoid opting into structured > bindings? > > The claim is that it's plausible to not provide a get<> if it can't be > ADL-called without additional incantations. > Choosing to do so will also not-enable support for structured bindings. > That seems like a surprising choice to me... but conditionally providing functionality is basically what we have feature test macros for, so I guess it makes sense. Barry
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
