This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: functional and type_traits cleanup
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler 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 21:43:46 +0100
- 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> <CAGNvRgAC5yT0FWYiDQiY-MNLWp+P0P4DULrewLCJ3--ffhK8Kg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 6 April 2013 21:03, Daniel Krügler wrote:
> 2013/4/6 Jonathan Wakely <email@example.com>
>> > 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.
It did: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-04/msg00031.html
> 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
> that individually.
They should all do, because the types that used to define a 'value'
member all now define a 'type' as a typedef for either true_type or
> 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.
That wouldn't hurt, but I agree it shouldn't prevent the patch going in.
François, please go ahead and commit it, thanks.