Do we need metaclasses to do this, or is reflection enough?

So I have been quite looking forward to metaclasses. I then heard that it won't be in c++23, as they think we first need reflection and reification in the language before we should add metaclasses.

Looking over c++23 reflection, there appears to be reification capabilties. Are they sufficient to solve what metaclasses would do; ie, are metaclasses just syntactic sugar?

Using the current proposal, can we replicate someone writing a type like:

interface bob {
  void eat_apple();
};

and generating a type like:

struct bob {
  virtual void eat_apple() = 0;
  virtual ~bob() = default;
};

To go further, taking something similar to

vtable bob {
  void eat_apple();
  ~bob();
};
poly_value bob_value:bob {};

and being able to generate

// This part is optional, but here we are adding
// a ADL helper outside the class.
template<class T>
void eat_apple(T* t) {
  t->eat_apple();
}

struct bob_vtable {
  // for each method in the prototype, make
  // a function pointer that also takes a void ptr:
  void(*method_eat_apple)(void*) = 0;

  // no method_ to guarantee lack of name collision with
  // a prototype method called destroy:
  void(*destroy)(void*) = 0;

  template<class T>
  static constexpr bob_vtable create() {
    return {
      [](void* pbob) {
        eat_apple( static_cast<T*>(pbob) );
      },
      [](void* pbob) {
        delete static_cast<T*>(pbob);
      }
    };
  }
  template<class T>
  static bob_vtable const* get() {
    static constexpr auto vtable = create<T>();
    return &vtable;
  }
};
struct bob_value {
  // these should probably be private
  bob_vtable const* vtable = 0;
  void* pvoid = 0;

  // type erase create the object
  template<class T> requires (!std::is_base_of_v< bob_value, std::decay_t<T> >)
  bob_value( T&& t ):
    vtable( bob_vtable::get<std::decay_t<T>>() ),
    pvoid( static_cast<void*>(new std::decay_t<T>(std::forward<T>(t))) )
  {}
  
  ~bob_value() {
    if (vtable) vtable->destroy(pvoid);
  }

  // expose the prototype's signature, dispatch to manual vtable
  // (do this for each method in the prototype)
  void eat_apple() {
    vtable->method_eat_apple(pvoid);
  }

  // the prototype doesn't have copy/move, so delete it
  bob_value& operator=(bob_value const&)=delete;
  bob_value(bob_value const&)=delete;
};

Live example, both of which are examples of the kind of thing I was excited about metaclasses over.

I'm less worried about the syntax (being able to write a library and make creating the poly values or interfaces simply is useful, exact syntax is not) as much as I am concerned about it being capable of that.

Looking over c++23 reflection, there appears to be reification capabilties. Are they sufficient to solve what metaclasses would do; ie, are metaclasses just syntactic sugar?

Calling it C++23 reflection is... optimistic. But the answer is yes. To quote from P2237:

metaclasses are just syntactic sugar on top of the features described [earlier]

As the paper points out, the metaclass syntax:

template<typename T, typename U>
struct(regular) pair{
    T first;
    U second;
};

means just:

namespace __hidden {
    template<typename T, typename U>
    struct pair {
        T first;
        U second;
    };
}

template <typename T, typename U>
struct pair {
    T first;
    U second;

    consteval {
        regular(reflexpr(pair), reflexpr(__hidden::pair<T, U>));
    }
};

where regular is some consteval function that injects a bunch of code. But in order for that to work at all, we need to have a language facility that supports a consteval function that injects a bunch of code. Metaclasses just provides a nice interface on top of that, but it's only a part of the kinds of things that hopefully we will be able to do with code injection.