mboehme added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-move-const-arg.cpp:75-76
@@ +74,4 @@
+
+struct NonMoveable {
+ public:
+ NonMoveable();
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This type isn't non-moveable. For that, you need to explicitly delete the
> move constructor. Perhaps a better name is `NonMoveConstructible`?
>
> Also, no need for the `public` access specifier.
> This type isn't non-moveable. For that, you need to explicitly delete the
> move constructor.
Can you expand on this?
The standard says: "If the definition of a class X does not explicitly declare
a move constructor, one will be implicitly declared as defaulted if and only if
- X does not have a user-declared copy constructor [...]" (12.8/9).
Because I'm declaring a copy constructor, I would thus have expected not to get
an implicitly-declared move constructor. Where am I going wrong here?
> Perhaps a better name is NonMoveConstructible?
But the type _is_ move-constructible (in the sense of
std::is_move_constructible<>).
> Also, no need for the public access specifier.
Oops -- thanks for catching this.
Actually, I meant to make this a class -- not sure how the "struct" slipped in
there.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/misc-move-const-arg.cpp:116
@@ +115,3 @@
+struct Moveable {
+ public:
+ Moveable();
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> No need for the `public` access specifier.
Thanks for cathching this -- as above, I meant to make this a class.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21223
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
