This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: functional and type_traits cleanup
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Krügler <daniel dot kruegler at gmail dot com>, 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: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 00:13:37 +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> <CAGNvRgAC5yT0FWYiDQiY-MNLWp+P0P4DULrewLCJ3--ffhK8Kg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTxb62_eFZ0pPdTjvvBvsqfR-=LiE7cVP2aBtmqergd5Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 04/06/2013 10:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
When I saw the patch I had the same concern, but indeed the nice
simplification seems worth the less transparent conformance.
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
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
Personally, I would be much less nervous if for <type_traits> too we
could have typedef checks for each and every trait (like we do for the
<tr1/type_traits>). By the way, we should also check that the value_type
operator is there...