Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[containers] Rephrase deduction guide constraints #1548

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jwakely
Copy link
Member

@jwakely jwakely commented Mar 16, 2017

Replace "is called with" wording that doesn't apply to deduction guides.

Move rules about qualifying as input iterators or allocators to
[container.requirements.general].

Fixes #1524

Replace "is called with" wording that doesn't apply to deduction guides.

Move rules about qualifying as input iterators or allocators to
[container.requirements.general].
@@ -700,6 +700,31 @@

\end{libreqtab4a}

\pnum
In this Clause the behavior of certain member functions and deduction guides
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

...and Clause~\ref{strings}. Also need to update the cross reference in [string.cons] after the move.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While we are in the vicinity, basic_string's deduction guide specification is missing a \pnum.

Copy link
Member Author

@jwakely jwakely Mar 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The missing \pnum is fixed.


\item The expression \tcode{declval<A\&>().allocate(size_t\{\})}
is well-formed when treated as an unevaluated operand.
if it has an \tcode{InputIterator} template parameter and a type that does not
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, does has a template parameter named \tcode{InputIterator} sound better?

@zygoloid zygoloid added this to the C++17 milestone Mar 17, 2017
\end{itemize}

\pnum
\begin{note}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like this note as-written: it suggests that implementations can impose unbounded constraints on the types in questions, rather than merely constraints that are derivable from the allocator or input iterator requirements.

I'm inclined to merge this without the new note.

@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

Addressed timsong's comments, removed note, merged as d2b6fb6.

@zygoloid zygoloid closed this Mar 20, 2017
@jwakely jwakely deleted the issue-1524 branch November 23, 2017 20:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants