On 8 May 2016 at 14:51, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 May 2016 at 14:48, Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Have you considered to test against decay instead of >> remove_reference/remove_const? That would be similar to other places >> in the standard. (I also believe that your fix actually should be >> submitted as an LWG issue) > > > STL is about to submit the fix as an LWG issue. He seemed to agree > that the fix is what > he intends to submit. Using decay instead of > remove_reference/remove_const is fine by > me, but I suppose it shouldn't make a difference here other than > notational brevity?
For what it's worth, I have the tiniest preference against using decay here; whenever I see decay, I wonder whether array/function decay is significant. While it doesn't make a difference here, I still prefer just doing remove_reference+remove_const here. It's up to Jonathan, I'll change it to decay if he so advises.
