On 12/14/2016 12:07 PM, David Gileadi wrote:
The above rule doesn't cover non-template function declarations like the `process` example in the DIP, however. Are they an important enough use case to justify new syntax?
I suspect 90% of all uses will be straight definitions of template functions or template structs/classes. So by that estimate we should be in good shape.
However, looking inside the definition in order to look up names in its declarations breaks the rule of least astonishment. Making the import part of the syntactical unit of the declaration seems to be the path of least resistance.
Andrei
