On 17 August 2018 at 22:46, Ville Voutilainen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If we think the test is right, we should report a defect. Either way, >> I think this patch would be a nice simplification. We can either fix >> (or just remove) the test, or constrain the primary template. > > I think the test is reasonable to the point of being obvious. If you > pass an allocator_arg > and an allocator, the intent is that uses-allocator construction is > always used, not that > it's used unless the element type is constructible from allocator_arg > and an allocator. > While the explicitness and presence of some tuple constructors depends > on the properties > of the element types, the semantics of the allocator constructors > should not depend on them > to decide whether to do uses-allocator construction or not - that > would be a vector<bool> again.
So yes, I strongly think we should report a defect.
