Skip to content
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

[over.match.class.deduct]-p6 Wrong (comments for some) examples (a7, a8) #647

Open
mrussoLuxoft opened this issue Nov 28, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@mrussoLuxoft
Copy link

mrussoLuxoft commented Nov 28, 2024

Reporter: Mauro Russo

Reference (section label): [over.match.class.deduct] part 6

Link to reflector thread (if any):
None

Issue description:

The two examples (with a7 and a8) from [over.match.class.deduct]-p6 (draft of Nov 2024):

template <class T> struct A {
  explicit A(const T&, ...) noexcept;               // #1
  A(T&&, ...);                                      // #2
};

...

template <class T> A(const T&, const T&) -> A<T&>;  // #3
template <class T> explicit A(T&&, T&&) -> A<T>;    // #4

...

A a7 = {0, i};      // error: #3 deduces to A<int&>, #1 and #2 declare same constructor
A a8{0,i};          // error: #3 deduces to A<int&>, #1 and #2 declare same constructor

are wrong, as preliminary discussed on:
https://lists.isocpp.org/std-discussion/2024/11/2715.php (and 2718.php)
https://lists.isocpp.org/std-discussion/2024/11/2736.php

Indeed, deduction fails because guides from #2 and #3 (see the full example in standard text or on godbolt link https://godbolt.org/z/oejf5P1Tc) are non matching better each other.
The aforementioned text reads, instead, that #3 wins (successful deduction) and then the error is because, consequently, constructors #1 and #2 ambiguate, which would be true in case the deduction had led to T = int&.

Suggested resolution:

I would propose the following changes, one with the error about overload resolution between two deduction guides, and one where a deduction guide wins and two equivalent constructors are consequently generated, so that both topics of the original comments are shown. I guess it is not that important to select between copy-list-initialization (a7) or not (a8), as another example (see a5 in standard text) already shows that the explicit user-defined deduction guide is involved (as per the text of [over.match.list]).

A a7 = {0, i};      // error: #2 and #3 both match, overload resolution fails
A a8{i,i};          // error: #3 deduces to A<int&>, #1 and #2 declare same constructor

(see https://godbolt.org/z/9Ecf8943x)

Do you believe it is interesting to highlight that even #1 matches for a7 ? (but #3 wins compared to it).

Additional info:

Previously open as an issue here: cplusplus/draft#7445
There, see also cplusplus/draft#7444 if it helps.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant