On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Ryan Molden <[email protected]> wrote: > Something more like this? It isn't ultimately generic, but it does allow for > re-use of the general logic between UTT_HasNoThrowAssign and > UTT_HasNoThrowMoveAssign.
Yes, that's more akin to what I was thinking (something similar can eventually be done for nothrow constructor and nothrow copy constructors I bet). Patch LGTM, but wait for further confirmation before committing. Thanks! ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
