2014-06-02 0:35 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>: > 2014-06-01 Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> > > * include/bits/uses_allocator.h (__uses_allocator_helper): Simplify. > (__uses_allocator_arg): Remove unused type. > (__uses_alloc0): Turn into a trivial type. > (__uses_alloc): Add missing template parameter in primary template. > (__uses_alloc_impl): Rename to __uses_alloc_t.
Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from base classes, such as : public false_type => : false_type In the affected examples this does not introduce a change of meaning (because the classes are declared as structs), but my understanding had been in the past that base class access specifiers should always been provided in gcc code bases to make the code robust against potential refactoring. Is this simply an incorrect understanding of mine that is not based by the gcc coding styles? I thought that Paolo taught me the "explicit-access-style", but I might err. - Daniel
