This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [v3 PATCH] Make the default constructors of tuple and pair conditionally explicit.
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 20:12:55 +0530
- Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] Make the default constructors of tuple and pair conditionally explicit.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFk2RUaUjmpsbvQdonwR2SaqjAMHk2tjaBrKjM1Gy8jmJg1Ufg at mail dot gmail dot com> <56377F0B dot 7070209 at oracle dot com> <CAFk2RUbWcCeQWdqeoR2x+W2nSgMR9fsGKZQAtFw6eXz8U6+MJA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5637B784 dot 6020403 at oracle dot com> <CAFk2RUY67uRTZTTZ+B3GpqgSr+jp8Own8S4zAss=dd0L=cvWwg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5637D079 dot 1070906 at oracle dot com>
On 3 November 2015 at 02:37, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
>>> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
>>> avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks good to me.
>>
>>
>> Sure. Tested again on Linux-PPC64, tests adjusted due to line changes,
>> Changelog entry updated to have a correct date on it.
>
> Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
> therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
I have a weak preference for deriving from xxx::type rather than xxx,
so that the traits derive directly from either true_type or
false_type, not indirectly via some other type that derives from
true_type or false_type, but it probably isn't important.