"Implement" LWG-3632 by commenting unique_ptr CTAD
#2548
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
LWG-3632 specifies that `unique_ptr` constructors that accept `pointer` inhibit CTAD with `type_identity_t`. We inhibit CTAD differently, but it's not obvious to a reader why these constructors don't look like they do in the Standard - let's add a comment to explain why.
20 tasks
StephanTLavavej
changed the title
unique_ptr CTAD
StephanTLavavej
approved these changes
Feb 8, 2022
|
I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo. Requesting or pushing changes is totally fine, but please notify me if that happens. |
mnatsuhara
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2022
|
Thanks for adding this clarification to the codebase! 🧠 💡 😺 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
LWG-3632 specifies that
unique_ptrconstructors that acceptpointerinhibit CTAD withtype_identity_t. We inhibit CTAD differently, but it's not obvious to a reader why these constructors don't look like they do in the Standard - let's add a comment to explain why.