On 03/06/2015 02:11 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
>> I would argue for a third audience (though arguably a subset of the 2nd case
>> above):
>>
>> 3.  The person modifying the function.  They have to know whether or not it
>> is a template or a specific concrete type.
>>
>> We can say that, if a person changes a function without first determining
>> that and causes a regression, well shame on them.  I think that is fair.
>> But I think we can do better by offering a little assistance.
>
> But do we have to mandate that assistance in every case?

But do we have to obscure the nature of the function in any cases?

What advantage is gained by eliminating the need for a single 'template'
or other "this-is-a-template" identifier on the function declaration.
Saving keystrokes on a single token doesn't strike me as a big win.

Is your view that allowing template and non-template functions to share
a common declaration syntax makes C++ simpler?  From my perspective, it
actually makes the language more difficult because it obscures
semantically relevant details.

Tom.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-discussion+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-discussion@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-discussion/.

.