Open hewillk opened 1 month ago
This feels editorial to me. I prefer the formulation in view_interface, however. Moving the definition of class-type to [expos.only.entity] seems in order. Can we then get rid of decays-to entirely?
@jwakely ?
This feels editorial to me. I prefer the formulation in view_interface, however. Moving the definition of class-type to [expos.only.entity] seems in order. Can we then get rid of decays-to entirely?
@jwakely ?
decays-to
seems to be a very common concept, and I believe it is used in some form or another in the standard. Perhaps we can reuse decays-to
, too.
<execution>
introduces the following exposition-only concepts:which used to constrain
This is basically similar to the constraints we have for
view_interface
andrange_adaptor_closure
in<ranges>
:Not sure if reusing the
class-type
is worth the simplification (if LWG is needed):