Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: error on tuple copy ctor
...
Should we add the ctor even if the standard does not
(currently) specify it?
I don't think it's needed or desirable. In the test case I
posted, we want to call the const T& overload.
That's the only workaround I can think of. You have another one in
mind?
A workaround for what? This is a valid definition of
a CopyConstructible and MoveConstructible class (like tuple):
struct S {
S (const S&);
S (S&&);
};
I don't see why S would need another copy ctor with the signature
of S(S&). I realize tuple is quite a bit more complicated than S,
too complicated for me to understand why the ctor might be
necessary if, if fact, it really is. Could you show in a small
isolated example the problem that this ctor works around?
Martin
