This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>
- From: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 00:46:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140601223536 dot GR6953 at redhat dot com>
2014-06-02 0:35 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>:
> 2014-06-01 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
>
> * include/bits/uses_allocator.h (__uses_allocator_helper): Simplify.
> (__uses_allocator_arg): Remove unused type.
> (__uses_alloc0): Turn into a trivial type.
> (__uses_alloc): Add missing template parameter in primary template.
> (__uses_alloc_impl): Rename to __uses_alloc_t.
Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from
base classes, such as
: public false_type
=>
: false_type
In the affected examples this does not introduce a change of meaning
(because the classes are declared as structs), but my understanding
had been in the past that base class access specifiers should always
been provided in gcc code bases to make the code robust against
potential refactoring.
Is this simply an incorrect understanding of mine that is not based by
the gcc coding styles? I thought that Paolo taught me the
"explicit-access-style", but I might err.
- Daniel