Use value_type instead of charT in the string_view declarations.
#1411
Conversation
| constexpr basic_string_view(const charT* str); | ||
| constexpr basic_string_view(const charT* str, size_type len); | ||
| constexpr basic_string_view(const value_type* str); | ||
| constexpr basic_string_view(const value_type* str, size_type len); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this change means a deduction guide would be required to deduce the template args when using these constructors. That makes it a normative change, and possibly against LEWG's guidance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, then. Let's not do that. :-). What I really want is the typedefs at the top. If we can agree that those are OK (and editorial), then I'll make a new PR with just those.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As long as there are no constructors taking the pointer or reference types I think that is editorial.
|
Is there any particular reason to prefer one or the other style? Or is it just that template parameters are uglified by the implementation, so not having them appear frequently is a good idea? |
|
It's both an uglified thing, and a consistency thing. |
|
I've created #1416 with just the typedef changes. Closing this one. |
No description provided.