On Dec 16, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Thanks for the review. I've committed the first version in r146729 so that
> fixes can happen in-tree. Almost all of your and David's feedback both here
> and on IRC has been addressed. Only one issue remains, and if you have ideas
> about how to solve it, I'll happily jump on that one.
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just one comment:
>
> + VariadicFunction() {}
> +
>
> This is not trivial, which is unfortunate. Please just leave out the default
> constructor so we'll get the implicitly-generated trivial default
> constructor. (The same goes for all of the VariadicFunction* class templates).
>
> This sounds great, but it breaks declaring these as 'const'. It's really not
> clear to me why, but I may be having a dense moment here. Do you think its
> worth requiring these to be non-const to make the constructor trivial? Any
> other ideas of how to do this? I agree trivial would be much better here.
Why not something like
const VariadicFunction<blah> Foo = { };
?
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
