When you have class template argument deduction available from C++17, why can\'t you deduce the template arguments of std::unique_ptr? For example, this gives me an error:
I'm not going to repeat the rationale in @NathanOliver's great answer, I'm just going to mention the how of it, the mechanics, which is what I think you are also after. You are right that if the constructor of unique_ptr
looked merely like...
explicit unique_ptr( T* ) noexcept;
... it'd be possible to deduce T
. The compiler generated deduction guide would work just fine. And that would be a problem, like Nathan illustrates. But the constructor is specified like this...
explicit unique_ptr( pointer p ) noexcept;
... where the alias pointer
is specified as follows:
pointer
:std::remove_reference<Deleter>::type::pointer
if that type exists, otherwiseT*
. Must satisfy NullablePointer.
That specification essentially means that pointer
must be an alias to __some_meta_function<T>::type
. Everything on the left of ::type
is a non-deduced context, which is what prevents the deduction of T
from pointer
. That's how these sort of deduction guides could be made to fail even if pointer
needed to be T*
always. Just by making it a non-deduced context will prevent the viability of any deduction guide produced from that constructor.
Lets look at new int
and new int[10]
. Both of those return an int*
. There is no way to tell if you should have unique_ptr<int>
or unique_ptr<int[]>
. That right there is enough not to provide any sort of deduction guide.