I like this syntax.
I'm worried, though, about how it will interact with explicit
template
parameters. E.g., how would you express this:
bool func(R,T,U)(T t, U u) { ... }
in the new syntax?
bool func(R)(auto t, auto u) { ... }
?
What if we have variadics on either side?
I'm still on the fence as to whether we should add the new
syntax, nice
as it is. The current syntax is far more unambiguous, and
allows you to
specify signature constraints on the input types directly, as
well as
use it in the return type spec, without needing to say
typeof(t) or
typeof(u).
T
If these syntax is feasible to template functions, is it possible
to apply it to class template?
class A
{
int a; // normal member
auto b; // template member?
}
