On 17/02/20 17:26 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Mo., 17. Feb. 2020 um 16:33 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>:
Many uses of std::numeric_limits in C++17 and C++20 features only really
need the min(), max() and digits constants for integral types. By adding
__detail::__int_limits we can avoid including the whole <limits> header.
numeric_limits has specializations for cv-qualified types, but for
__ini_limits there is only an undefined specialization for bool.
Shouldn't the same undefined specialization be provided for cv bool?
It may be that currently all usages of that trait apply on already
unqualified types, but this might be a fragile assumption.
The specialization for bool is only there to catch misuses by the
library, it's not really necessary. But I agree that also catching
errors for const bool makes sense. I don't think we need to care about
volatile.
I'm tempted to make __int_limits<const T> an error though, it's not
needed.
