On 17/08/18 22:46 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 17 August 2018 at 22:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
That was added by https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-12/msg00122.html
but I see no justification for that in the standard (and neither
libc++ nor MSFTL does anything special here, so they fai
On 17 August 2018 at 22:46, Ville Voutilainen
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 reasonab
On 17 August 2018 at 22:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> That was added by https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-12/msg00122.html
> but I see no justification for that in the standard (and neither
> libc++ nor MSFTL does anything special here, so they fail the test
> too).
>
> Ville, I'm no longer con
While fixing PR 86963 I realised we can get rid of the 2-tuple partial
specialization, and just add the relevant constructors and assignment
operators to the primary template. They're all constrained anyway, so
they won't be available except when sizeof...(_Elements) == 2.
This patch also removes
