mizvekov added a comment. In D133683#3818858 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133683#3818858>, @ychen wrote:
> It is clear cut by https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.deduct.partial#3.1. It is > orthogonal to the DRs implemented in D128745 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745> and here. > https://godbolt.org/z/s49sqrabY : if you call `g(42,42)`, it would reveal > that the function without pack indeed wins. It is ambiguous because the > caller `g(42)` does not use the pack. So the wording prevents us from letting > the non-pack version win. I do somewhat agree that it is more consistent and > predictable to always consider all function parameters for partial ordering. > Yeah, that needs a whole separate discussion on > https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.deduct.partial#3.1. I think it's using the pack, the pack is just being deduced as an empty pack. This is different from a template parameter which is not being deduced because it does not appear in the arguments. To reiterate, what you said would make sense if the second overload was written as: `template <typename T, typename... U> void g(T);` Instead of `template <typename T, typename... U> void g(T, U...);` as it is. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133683/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133683 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
