Andrey Prokopenko

> Why not. We can say there is a default and define clearly what it does without making it something public. Users can deduce the type if they really want...

> What benefit do we get from making it a template? That is a good question. I don't have a good answer other than Boost does it. And I trust...

I updated the PR. It no longer renames `DefaultIndexableGetter` and does not template it on the `Value`. Instead, it simply provides CTAD for `Indexables` and moves `DefaultIndexableGetter` from `Details` to...

@dalg24 Thoughts?

> Did you try to deduce the integral type to use instead of only enabling for `unsigned` I didn't enable it only for `unsigned`. I enabled it for the case...

> Exactly I was thinking about doing the conversion. Why do you think we shouldn't? I am concerned about losing precision. What if the hierarchy is created on `PairValueIndex` and...

> We say that all attached indexes being representable as the integral value type of the view is a precondition You mean in the documentation? This feels like prone to...

After a discussion, we agreed to relax the requirements on type matching, and simply require that the value type in the output view is integral. Rationale: we already do if...

The things that worked are ```cpp template void iota(ExecutionSpace const &, ViewType const &v, typename ViewType::value_type value = 0) { Kokkos::DefaultExecutionSpace space; Kokkos::parallel_for("iota", Kokkos::RangePolicy(space, (int32_t)0, (int32_t)v.extent(0)), KOKKOS_LAMBDA(int i) { v(i)...

> explore defining `struct MyPoint { float x, y; };` The whole point is for a user to not define their own type. The only thing that's necessary is to...