On 6 April 2013 21:03, Daniel Krügler wrote: > 2013/4/6 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >> > >> > But the version with the default template parameter is fine and more >> > consistent with the other helpers implementation so, adopted! Here is an >> > other version of the patch for validation. >> > >> > Daniel, I agree that inheritance with integral_constant is not as >> > obvious as before but it is still there and it is just what the compiler >> > need. >> >> I assume Daniel's reply was an HTML mail and didn't make it to the >> list, was there an objection to the change or a general comment? > > Yes, I got a reply that my response was not accepted due to html > content. I hope this one gets into it.
It did: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-04/msg00031.html > My response was more like a > general comment: My apprehension is that I after these changes not all > predicate type traits do satisfy the Library requirement anymore that > they still derive from std::integral_constant. But I have not checked > that individually. They should all do, because the types that used to define a 'value' member all now define a 'type' as a typedef for either true_type or false_type. > Thanks Jonathan. The text above more or less reflects the content of > my previous comment. I think I have no formal objection to the > changes, but after they have been applied I would like to do a more > rigorous test of the inheritance requirement. That wouldn't hurt, but I agree it shouldn't prevent the patch going in. François, please go ahead and commit it, thanks.