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

[temp.class.spec.match] Strengthen wording for matching partial specializations #3922

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sdkrystian
Copy link
Contributor

The current wording for [temp.class.spec.match] p2 leaves much to be desired in terms of precision:

A partial specialization matches a given actual template argument list if the template arguments of the partial specialization can be deduced from the actual template argument list, and the deduced template arguments satisfy the associated constraints of the partial specialization, if any.

Template argument deduction uses a concrete type "reference" to deduce the values of template parameters of a "target". Presumably when we say "template arguments of the partial specialization" we mean the template-argument-list, however, the "A can be deduced from B" relation doesn't make the most sense here since it implies that A is the resulting argument for a template parameter produced by the deduction, rather than the "target" of the deduction.

Comment on lines +3399 to +3400
template argument deduction\iref{temp.deduct.type} for \tcode{P} from \tcode{A} would succeed
and the deduced template arguments would satisfy the associated constraints
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
template argument deduction\iref{temp.deduct.type} for \tcode{P} from \tcode{A} would succeed
and the deduced template arguments would satisfy the associated constraints
template argument deduction\iref{temp.deduct.type} for \tcode{P} from \tcode{A} succeeds
and the deduced template arguments satisfy the associated constraints

No need for the hypothetical here.

@zygoloid zygoloid added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Oct 18, 2020
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

I don't find the existing wording especially unclear, but this does seem more precise.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Editorial meeting: No appetite to apply.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Dec 4, 2020
@jensmaurer jensmaurer closed this Dec 4, 2020
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants