On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote: > >> On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> >>> On 10-11-17 08:47 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote: >>>> Author: hhinnant >>>> Date: Wed Nov 17 19:47:02 2010 >>>> New Revision: 119611 >>>> >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=119611&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> LWG 1432 >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> libcxx/trunk/include/algorithm >>>> >>>> Modified: libcxx/trunk/include/algorithm >>>> URL: >>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/include/algorithm?rev=119611&r1=119610&r2=119611&view=diff >>>> ============================================================================== >>>> --- libcxx/trunk/include/algorithm (original) >>>> +++ libcxx/trunk/include/algorithm Wed Nov 17 19:47:02 2010 >>>> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ >>>> >>>> template<class RandomAccessIterator, class UniformRandomNumberGenerator> >>>> void shuffle(RandomAccessIterator first, RandomAccessIterator last, >>>> - UniformRandomNumberGenerator& g); >>>> + UniformRandomNumberGenerator&& g); >>> >>> Should this constructor also be protected by the rvalue references macro? >> >> No, but only because it is a comment. :-) >> >> Each public header begins with a synopsis in comments at the top, which is >> what we're looking at here. > > > I find that synopsis super-confusing, by the way ;) > > - Doug
Ok, if that is the consensus of the community I can easily remove them. On a previous product this was a customer-requested feature and subsequent feedback on it was positive. I encourage people to view this question through actual use of the header, as opposed to a svn diff. -Howard _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
