From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
To: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] Implement N4387 and LWG 2367
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 08:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFk2RUZO75qesPR11wNp-mcz5wi5ArnE2_oFk5U=iV_YWUHnNQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1506070748560.2000@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>
On 7 June 2015 at 09:53, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> Since the paper does not mention looking at _MoveConstructibleTuple or
> _ImplicitlyMoveConvertibleTuple here, could you add a comment explaining
> why that is needed?
Sure.
> Does the following code still compile with your patch?
> struct A { int a,b; };
> std::tuple<int,int,A> a(3,4,{1,2});
No. :/ And we have no test for it.. I'll need to look at that.
> IMO the parts with is_default_constructible point to a core issue, we should
> not have to duplicate information, especially in such a convoluted way. But
> I guess that has lower priority than noexcept(auto), and I haven't yet
> looked if concepts will help.
Concepts would help a lot, but being able to use them in a library
implementation
is some ways off.
> You use a lot: typename enable_if<X, bool>::type=true
> while the current code seems to favor: class=typename enable_if<X>::type.
> I don't really care which one is used, but it is easier to read when the
> style is consistent through the library.
It's not a style issue. That template parameter needs to be a non-type one,
otherwise the overloads are ambiguous.
> Introducing
> typename _XXX = _TC<(sizeof...(_Elements) == sizeof...(_UElements)),
> _Elements...>
> and then using _XXX::template thing() might give less clutter when you have
> to repeat it 4 times.
Sounds good, I'll give it a spin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-07 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-07 6:53 Ville Voutilainen
2015-06-07 8:13 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-07 8:33 ` Ville Voutilainen [this message]
2015-06-07 8:49 ` Ville Voutilainen
2015-06-07 8:50 ` Ville Voutilainen
2015-06-07 11:37 ` Marc Glisse
2015-06-08 15:41 ` Martin Sebor
2015-06-08 15:56 ` Ville Voutilainen
2015-06-08 16:16 ` Ville Voutilainen
2015-06-14 7:07 ` Ville Voutilainen
2015-06-30 13:28 ` Jonathan Wakely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAFk2RUZO75qesPR11wNp-mcz5wi5ArnE2_oFk5U=iV_YWUHnNQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).