On 11/01/17 08:04 -0500, Tim Song wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
This patch uses the _Enable_default_constructor mixin to properly
delete the default constructors. It's a bit cumbersome, because we
have to add an initializer for the base class to every
ctor-initializer-list, but I think I prefer this to making the default
constructor a constrained template.
I'm happy with either approach - my primary concern is making sure
that is_constructible and friends work and don't lie, in a world where
increasing numbers of library components depend on it. Though I'm a
Yes, it's important that we give the right answer.
bit curious as to why you found this approach more preferable.
I dislike making functions into templates when they aren't "supposed"
to be. But I'm in two minds for this case. It's certainly a smaller,
more self-contained change to just add a default constructor template
and not mess about with a new base class and DMIs and all those
mem-initializers.
Re the new DMI, my brain compiler says that _Sequence c = _Sequence();
breaks anything with an explicit copy/move constructor pre-C++17, but
I also don't think we care about those, right?
I dislike them, but maybe the fact they won't work here is a strong
enough reason to get over my dislike of the original approach and just
do it that way instead.
