Link:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0091r1.html

And we have DIP40:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP40

Is someone there to renew it in new DIPs repo? T.T

On 7/26/16 1:12 AM, mogu wrote:
> Link:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0091r1.html
>
> And we have DIP40:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP40
>
> Is someone there to renew it in new DIPs repo? T.T

I think this should be forwarded. It's a very nice thing, and having C++ adopting it could be new incentive to solve it. Must keep up with the Joneses :)

-Steve

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 at 05:12:13 UTC, mogu wrote:
> Link:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0091r1.html
>
> And we have DIP40:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP40
>
> Is someone there to renew it in new DIPs repo? T.T

I'd like to see that move forward, but the way this DIP is doing it won't cut it.

Defining IFTY for structs and functions independently is a recipe to have subtle difference between the 2. I'd support a proposal that define the concept of "Callable" or whatever the name, and then define IFTI for callables.