On 3 November 2015 at 16:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 November 2015 at 02:37, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini
>>> wrote:
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
>
On 3 November 2015 at 02:37, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
>>> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit fr
Hi,
On 11/03/2015 06:01 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 23:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
Tested again on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk?
Go ahead!
Paolo.
On 2 November 2015 at 23:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
> therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
Tested again on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk?
2015-11-03 Ville Voutilainen
Make the default constructors of
Hi,
On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks goo
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
> avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks good to me.
Sure. Tested again on Linux-PPC64, tests
Hi,
+ template
+struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
+ : public integral_constant,
+__is_implicitly_default_constructible_safe<_Tp>
+ >::value)>
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constr
On 2 November 2015 at 17:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Anyway, so far the only detail which makes me a little nervous is the
> following:
>
> + template
> +struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
> + : public integral_constant +(is_default_constructible<_Tp>::value
Hi Ville,
On 11/01/2015 04:27 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
In the last meeting, while processing LWG 2510, LWG's guidance
was to make the default constructors of pair and tuple conditionally
explicit. This patch implements a new trait and uses it in pair and tuple.
Paolo, Jonathan is traveling
In the last meeting, while processing LWG 2510, LWG's guidance
was to make the default constructors of pair and tuple conditionally
explicit. This patch implements a new trait and uses it in pair and tuple.
Paolo, Jonathan is traveling and somewhat unlikely to be able to review
this for quite some
10 matches
Mail list logo
