@timsong-cpp , should be much better now.

@zygoloid, since const(expr) variable templates now have external linkage, it seems the "inline" is now redundant. What do you think?

I agree that removinginline fromconstexpr variable templates is a correct change. However, if I remember correctly, the LWG folks were informed that theinline is redundant for variable templates (and it was -- arguably -- redundant beforeCWG2387 too, albeit for a different reason), but they wanted to keep it anyway. Seems worth checking with them.

In passing, I did a pass through the wording to double-check thatinline has no other semantic effect, and I found a bug that might be construed as causing problems with this change; here it is with suggested fix:

[module.import]/6: "A header unit shall not contain a definition of a non-inlinenon-template function or variable whose name has external linkage."

I'm not sure whether we'd consider that editorial, but the intent of the rule is that it only applies to declarations that allow at most one definition.

However, if I remember correctly, the LWG folks were informed that the inline is redundant for variable templates (and it was -- arguably -- redundant before CWG2387 too, albeit for a different reason), but they wanted to keep it anyway. Seems worth checking with them.

Thank you, that's good to know!@jwakely,@CaseyCarter: woudl you happen to have any immediate thoughts on whether the proposed change would be desirable by LWG, or perhaps on the contrary?

IIRC we were uncomfortable with "arguably redundant beforeCWG2387" and decided to keep the possibly-redundantinlines until such time as they became unarguably extraneous. I believe that is now the case.

While it wasn't an explicit discussion, I did recently mention this PR on the reflector (https://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2021/06/19716.php) as an argument to avoid adding another redundantinline in an LWG issue resolution, and there was no hue and cry.

until such time as they became unarguably extraneous

Yes, that was my understanding. "It's probably redundant, but there's an active core issue" wasn't very reassuring 🙂

Editorial meeting 2021-06-18: This is pending the [module.import] fix mentioned by@zygoloid.

@CaseyCarter , please take a look.

@tkoeppe , rebased.

Thanks!

@CaseyCarter , thanks, fixed.

All good, all done?

Applied with commit9ac5555

(I don't understand why this wasn't closed as "merged" when I rebase-squashed it. I thought it might have been a bug in GitHub.)