On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 > Thanks for the review/feedback! I thought of also trying to factor the constructor traits you talked about but it looked a tad more complex and it felt strange to do it in this changeset, since I had no other reason to touch that code. I don't have commit privileges, so I will be waiting for some kind soul. Ryan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
