ychen added a comment. In D128750#3680607 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750#3680607>, @royjacobson wrote:
> In D128750#3663161 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750#3663161>, @ychen wrote: > >> In D128750#3662898 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750#3662898>, @royjacobson >> wrote: >> >>> but in your example with T/U/V we have 3 template parameters that we could >>> reorder in 6 different ways. >> >> But, any reordering of the 6 that does not have consecutive U and V is not >> valid. Because in the other template, T/U is consecutive and used by X<T, U> >> in that order. I don't think it is allowed to change the template parameter >> references in the function parameters. > > Sorry for taking the time to answer! > I'm still not sure why it wouldn't be allowed to change template parameter > freely. The standard just says 'reordering of the associated > template-parameter-list'. I understand it to mean any permutation of them > until they match the order of the other function's template parameters (which > doesn't even to be the candidate that generated this reversed candidate). I > don't understand why U,V must be consecutive - might be I'm missing > something, but all forms seem to be valid templates? > https://godbolt.org/z/E8Y3Ez3TY > > Also, in case it was understood otherwise - I still think this is reasonable > and I don't think we should wait until someone gets an answer from CWG - my > request for changes is because I want to see better tests coverage. Thanks for the feedback! I've updated the patch description to reflect the current status of the patch. PTAL. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128750 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
