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
Conversation
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
\pnum | ||
\begin{note} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Addressed timsong's comments, removed note, merged as d2b6fb6. |
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