CaseyCarter added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/std/utilities/variant/variant.hash/hash.pass.cpp:34
+
+void test_hash_variant()
+{
----------------
This is non-portable. The fact that both your implementation and mine pass this
test suggests they both have poor QoI: There's strong opinion in the community
that a variant's index should contribute to its hash value, so that e.g.
`variant<int, int>{in_place_index<0>, 42}` and `variant<int,
int>{in_place_index<1>, 42}` have differing hash values.
================
Comment at: test/std/utilities/variant/variant.helpers/variant_size.pass.cpp:41
+{
+ test<std::variant<>, 0>();
+ test<std::variant<void*>, 1>();
----------------
STL_MSFT wrote:
> Hmm, is this cromulent now that empty variants are forbidden?
It's not forbidden to *name* `variant<>`; it is forbidden to *instantiate* it.
The pertinent specialization of `variant_size`:
```
template <class... Types>
struct variant_size<variant<Types...>>
: integral_constant<size_t, sizeof...(Types)> { };
```
is implicitly specified to not instantiate `variant<Types...>`.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26903
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
