You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Q:

Omit return type in C++11

I've recently found myself using the following macro with gcc 4.5 in C++11 mode:
#define RETURN(x) -> decltype(x) { return x; }

And writing functions like this:
template <class T>
auto f(T&& x) RETURN (( g(h(std::forward<T>(x))) ))

I've been doing this to avoid the inconvenience having to effectively write the function body twice, and having keep changes in the body and the return type in sync (which in my opinion is a disaster waiting to happen).
The problem is that this technique only works on one line functions. So when I have something like this (convoluted example):
template <class T>
auto f(T&& x) -> ...
{
   auto y1 = f(x);
   auto y2 = h(y1, g1(x));
   auto y3 = h(y1, g2(x));
   if (y1) { ++y3; }
   return h2(y2, y3);
}

Then I have to put something horrible in the return type.
Furthermore, whenever I update the function, I'll need to change the return type, and if I don't change it correctly, I'll get a compile error if I'm lucky, or a runtime bug in the worse case. Having to copy and paste changes to two locations and keep them in sync I feel is not good practice.
And I can't think of a situation where I'd want an implicit cast on return instead of an explicit cast.
Surely there is a way to ask the compiler to deduce this information. What is the point of the compiler keeping it a secret? I thought C++11 was designed so such duplication would not be required.

A:

It would appear that g++ 4.8 is getting an implementation of auto return type deduction.
The patch was put in by Jason Merrill who is also sending a paper for C++-1Y for the feature.  The feature is available with -std=c++1y.
Still playing with it.

A:

The rationale for this behavior is given in the draft, 8.3.5p12:

A trailing-return-type is most useful
  for a type that would be more
  complicated to specify before the
  declarator-id:

template <class T, class U> auto add(T t, U u) -> decltype(t + u);

rather than 

template <class T, class U> decltype((*(T*)0) + (*(U*)0)) add(T t, U u);

So this is really only meant to simplify the case where referring to the parameter names helps.
If you assume that C++ could always infer the return type of functions from the function body: this is not going to fly. It's a goal of C++ (and C) to allow modularity by separating declaration from implementation, so at the point of the call, you may not have the body of the function available. However, every caller needs to know the parameter types and the return type of every function/method being called.

A:

If you are simply trying to set the return type, make it a template argument.  This way you can change everything related to the return type without actually changing the function.  You can put a default return type if you want like in this example.
template <class R = int, class T>
R f(T&& x)
{
   ...
   return h2(y2, y3);
}

The code below demonstrates it's effectiveness.
DEMO CODE:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>

template <class T, class S>
T h2(T& x, S& y)
{
  return x + y;
}

template <class R = int, class T>
R f(T& x)
{
  auto y2 = x;
  auto y3 = x;
  return h2(y2, y3);
}

int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
  int x = 7;
  std::string str = "test! ";

  auto d = f<double>(x);
  auto i = f(x); // use default type (int)
  auto s = f<std::string>(str);

  std::cout << std::fixed << std::setprecision(4);
  std::cout << "double: " << d << std::endl;
  std::cout << "int: " << i << std::endl;
  std::cout << "string: " << s << std::endl;

  return 0;
}

OUTPUT:
double: 14.0000
int: 14
string: test! test!

Unfortunately, the exact functionality you are looking for does not exist (yet) and is not part of the C++0x spec.  However, it is possible this may be part of the C++1x spec when it is drafted.  until then, stick to templates.