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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[expected.object.cons, expected.un.cons] Should we simplify is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, expected<U, G>&> and its friends? #6569

Open
frederick-vs-ja opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

[expected.object.cons, expected.un.cons] Should we simplify is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, expected<U, G>&> and its friends? #6569

frederick-vs-ja opened this issue Sep 19, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

According to [expected.un.cons], if I understand correctly, is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, expected<U, G>&> is true if and only if is_constructible_v<E, expected<U, G>&> is true (same for expected<U, G>, const expected<U, G>&, and const expected<U, G>).

So, it might be clearer to say is_constructible_v<E, meow> instead of is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, meow> in the constraints.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@frederick-vs-ja