stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Travis Vitek" <Travis.Vi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Empty member initializers
Date Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:14:18 GMT
 

Eric Lemings wrote:
>
> 
>>From $TOPDIR/include/rw/_pair.h:
> 
>     64     // 20.2.2, p2
>     65     pair ()
>     66 #ifndef _RWSTD_NO_EMPTY_MEM_INITIALIZER
>     67         : first (/* lwg issue 265 */), second () { }
>     68 #else
>     69         // assumes types satisfy the CopyConstructible
requirements
>     70         : first (first_type ()), second (second_type ()) { }
>     71 #endif   // _RWSTD_NO_EMPTY_MEM_INITIALIZER
>
>Are empty member initializers something we still need to concern
>ourselves with?  Is LWG issue 265 still pertinent?
> 

According to the defect, the resolution is in the current working paper,
so I don't think you need to worry about it changing. I don't know of
any modern compilers for which the EMPTY_MEM_INITIALIZER.cpp test would
fail.

This all gets back to the discussion we were having a few weeks ago
about which compiler features we should expect the compiler support for
4.3.x.

>Thanks,
>Brad.
>

Mime
View raw message