From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 7F8CA3858D35; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:26:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7F8CA3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705019162;
	bh=4EKe5lFmZd2AGuHEG2174dUZ1IzknU4kjZAiJmv+23I=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=boeJSI6/VwwJItED2NuRM8vbTiqgdc2N0G6n3ZuVhFAyP10ZYspxZ0UySmGbH3d4e
	 XSWIwhXyKHpbdpW9pvhi7lwx+NFy+hnoHehDap3vQOlSuHGdvd2Vun/MZVn6D3e/2q
	 Ed7PhGmOZv9uT7NRZFddO0PmCygHcWTwftnY5IG0=
From: "waffl3x at protonmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/102609] [C++23] P0847R7 - Deducing this
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:26:01 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: waffl3x at protonmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102609-4-huK3eaez26@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102609-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102609-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102609

--- Comment #29 from waffl3x <waffl3x at protonmail dot com> ---
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2789.html
My alteration to CWG2789 came up on reddit and I realized I should
probably post about it here.

Instead of:
"if both are non-static member functions, they have the same types for
their object parameters, and"
We assumed it would be more correct for it to consider corresponding
object parameters:
"if both are non-static member functions, they have corresponding
object parameters, and"

Without this change in wording, the behavior of overload resolution is
different for member function templates with constraints and member
functions that are not templates with constraints. I felt that would be
undesirable so I assumed that the second wording was closer to the
intentions behind CWG2789.

This is the behavior that's currently been implemented, are there any
objections?=