This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [v3] plus<void>

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

I've had this sitting in my tree waiting to do something with,

I did ask last week if someone had done it already...

I'm about to go to sleep so didn't check if the test covers anything yours doesn't.

In the test you have basic cover for all functors, and I cover only 2 cases (more specifically though, since I look at the return type cv-qual).

In my patch, I added constexpr and noexcept, I couldn't see any reason not to for such basic utilities. Yes, I did read the wiki and noticed the vote yesterday about constexpr, but imho that's wrong.

It looks like your patch adds the default template argument even in
C++98 mode, I avoided that by putting forward declarations at the top
of the file, in a #if block.

This only lets me write:
std::plus<> *p;
in C++98 mode (std::plus<> p; gives an error), doesn't seem that bad.

And I also add the void specializations in C++11 mode, as an extension.

Well, let's forget my patch and go with yours, though at least adding noexcept seems like a good idea.

(too bad we don't have noexcept(auto) here)
(too bad we can't use decltype(auto) for the return type, as that would disable sfinae, it is a bad sign when the standard turns its nose up at its own dog food...)

Marc Glisse

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]