dblaikie added a comment. (& I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but:
> In several cases it's not completely obvious to me whether a copy assignment > operator should or can be defined. But perhaps this doesn't need to be > addressed right now: we seem to compile with -Wextra, which contains > -Wdeprecated-copy. That should warn if a compiler-generated copy operation is > used while another is user-declared. > The rules for when the copy vs assignment operators are implicitly defined as > deleted can be hard to remember. I think being explicit is useful if only to > indicate that the author thought about whether such operations should be > provided. Since we don't have a principled reason for defining these > operations as deleted, it might not be a bad idea to add a comment that > states something like "The copy/move assignment operator is defined as > deleted pending further motivation". I'd also vote in favor of the "let it be implicitly deleted - we have the warnings enabled to catch it". But don't feel strongly enough to argue that chunks of this patch should be reverted) ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp:207 + + // The copy constrcutor and copy assignment operator is defined as deleted + // pending further motivation. ---------------- Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150411/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150411 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
