[v3 PATCH] Make the default constructors of tuple and pair conditionally explicit.

Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen@gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 14:49:00 GMT 2015


On 3 November 2015 at 16:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I expect the inheritance hierarchies of these things to be linear, so
probably not
a huge matter. I did push the patch already. :)



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list