EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29930#676858, @rsmith wrote:
> I don't like this name; it sounds too much like you're asking whether a > certain direct-initialization is possible, which is what `__is_constructible` > does. I also don't like the idea of combining an "is this type > direct-initializable from this list of arguments" check with a > reference-specific side-check; it seems better to expose the underlying check > itself and allow the user to figure out how they want to combine the checks. > > Perhaps we could introduce a `__reference_binds_to_temporary(T, U)` trait, > where `T` is required to be a reference type, that determines whether a > reference of type `T` bound to an expression of type `U` would bind to a > materialized temporary object (or subobject thereof)? That all sounds great to me. Thanks for the comments @rsmith. I'll update it tomorrow with the changes. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29930 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
