This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: functional and type_traits cleanup
- From: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:03:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: functional and type_traits cleanup
- References: <515DDF9F dot 1050809 at gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTbY7-5c1NCrCz3AZ=b4Ky3ZwFse5QxLAk0ptoZnO5wKA at mail dot gmail dot com> <515F3049 dot 5060403 at gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdRmThvFEh8bWbdKw=jbAp-ShiuoBpFdYxVtLRKotqHJTQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
2013/4/6 Jonathan Wakely <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > But the version with the default template parameter is fine and more
> > consistent with the other helpers implementation so, adopted! Here is an
> > other version of the patch for validation.
> > Daniel, I agree that inheritance with integral_constant is not as
> > obvious as before but it is still there and it is just what the compiler
> > need.
> I assume Daniel's reply was an HTML mail and didn't make it to the
> list, was there an objection to the change or a general comment?
Yes, I got a reply that my response was not accepted due to html
content. I hope this one gets into it. My response was more like a
general comment: My apprehension is that I after these changes not all
predicate type traits do satisfy the Library requirement anymore that
they still derive from std::integral_constant. But I have not checked
> > I even hope that it also simplified a (very) little bit the job for
> > the compiler.
> I don't know if the compiler's job is easier or not, but I think with
> your change the template instantiation depth is increased by one, with
> your change we get false_type instantiated by the instantiation of
> is_convertible, rather than being done after it using its value
> > Ok to commit ?
> I'd like to hear Daniel's comment first, but if we don't hear from him
> please commit it in 24 hours. Thanks.
Thanks Jonathan. The text above more or less reflects the content of
my previous comment. I think I have no formal objection to the
changes, but after they have been applied I would like to do a more
rigorous test of the inheritance requirement.