In http://reviews.llvm.org/D6964#164887, @K-ballo wrote:

> I am willing but time is lacking, and I'm already on my way to Lenexa. If you 
> know how to workaround CWG1432 and want to move this patch forward quickly 
> then don't let me hold it.


Right! I forgot that the US is quite a trek for you. I'll see you in Lenexa. 
I'm not worried about moving this quickly I just feel bad for leaving this for 
so long. Sorry : (


================
Comment at: include/type_traits:1501-1502
@@ -1491,1 +1500,4 @@
 
+template <class _Tp, class _Up, class ..._Vp>
+struct _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY common_type<_Tp, _Up, _Vp...>
+    : __common_type_impl<__common_types<_Tp, _Up, _Vp...> > {};
----------------
K-ballo wrote:
> EricWF wrote:
> > K-ballo wrote:
> > > EricWF wrote:
> > > > Isn't there a core language defect about the following specializations 
> > > > being ambiguous? Something along the lines of this? 
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > template <class ...> struct Foo;
> > > > 
> > > > template <class T> 
> > > > struct Foo<T> {}; // Specialization 1
> > > > 
> > > > template <class T, class ... Args>
> > > > struct Foo<T, Args...> {}; // Specialization 2
> > > > 
> > > > using MyFoo = Foo<int>; // The defect is that both 1 and 2 match.
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > > As far as I know it is accepted by all compilers but I just wanted to 
> > > > bring this up.
> > > > 
> > > I'm not sure, will investigate.
> > I think I found the bug that tracks this: 
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1432 . Could we 
> > work around it for now?
> I'm not sure I understand how to workaround this issue. Would that just take 
> a third non-variadic argument, say `<_Tp, _Up, _Vp, Wp...>`?
Yeah I think that is how you work around it. However I just noticed that our 
current `common_type` has this problem and it hasn't broken yet.

http://reviews.llvm.org/D6964

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to