On 3 November 2015 at 16:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 November 2015 at 02:37, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini
>>> wrote:
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
>
On 3 November 2015 at 02:37, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
>>> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit fr
Hi,
On 11/03/2015 06:01 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 23:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
Tested again on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk?
Go ahead!
Paolo.
On 2 November 2015 at 23:07, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Great, thanks a lot. Thinking more about this detail, I wonder if we should
> therefore apply the below too? Anything I'm missing?
Tested again on Linux-PPC64. Ok for trunk?
2015-11-03 Ville Voutilainen
Make the default constructors of
Hi,
On 11/02/2015 09:20 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks goo
On 2 November 2015 at 21:20, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
> __is_direct_constructible_new_safe) thus directly inherit from __and_ and
> avoid explicit integral_constant? Otherwise patch looks good to me.
Sure. Tested again on Linux-PPC64, tests
Hi,
+ template
+struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
+ : public integral_constant,
+__is_implicitly_default_constructible_safe<_Tp>
+ >::value)>
Can we follow the terse style already used elsewhere (eg,
__is_direct_constr
On 2 November 2015 at 17:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Anyway, so far the only detail which makes me a little nervous is the
> following:
>
> + template
> +struct __is_implicitly_default_constructible
> + : public integral_constant +(is_default_constructible<_Tp>::value
Hi Ville,
On 11/01/2015 04:27 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
In the last meeting, while processing LWG 2510, LWG's guidance
was to make the default constructors of pair and tuple conditionally
explicit. This patch implements a new trait and uses it in pair and tuple.
Paolo, Jonathan is traveling