Hey Ryan, and others on the list.... I have some concerns about this patch, but its holidays here so it'll be a few days before I can catch up and respond properly. I'll get back to you when I'm caught up.
Sorry for the delays. On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Ryan Molden <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
