mpark added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/tuple:568
+ using _QualType = typename _Deduced::_QualType;
+ static_assert(__tuple_like<typename _Deduced::_RawType>::value, "");
+ return __tuple_constructible<_QualType, tuple>::value
----------------
indentation?
================
Comment at: include/tuple:871
template <class _Alloc, class _Tuple,
+ class _Deduced = __deduce_tuple_like<_Tuple>,
+ class _TupBase = typename _Deduced::_QualType,
----------------
indentation?
================
Comment at: include/tuple:906
template <class _Tuple,
+ class _Deducer = __deduce_tuple_like<_Tuple>,
+ class _QualTupleBase = typename _Deducer::_QualType,
----------------
`s/_Deducer/_Deduced/`
================
Comment at: include/tuple:907
+ class _Deducer = __deduce_tuple_like<_Tuple>,
+ class _QualTupleBase = typename _Deducer::_QualType,
class = typename enable_if
----------------
`s/_QualTupleBase/_TupBase/`
================
Comment at: include/tuple:915
tuple&
- operator=(_Tuple&& __t) _NOEXCEPT_((is_nothrow_assignable<base&,
_Tuple>::value))
+ operator=(_Tuple&& __t) _NOEXCEPT_((is_nothrow_assignable<base&,
_QualTupleBase>::value))
{
----------------
A general comment about using the `base` in noexcept condition. I remember for
`variant` we wanted to express it directly rather than delegating it to the
"base". Does that also apply here?
================
Comment at: include/tuple:917
{
- base_.operator=(_VSTD::forward<_Tuple>(__t));
+ base_.operator=(_VSTD::forward<_QualTupleBase>(__t));
return *this;
----------------
Here and elsewhere, why do we bother with `base_.operator=(...);` as opposed to
just `base_ = ...;`?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27606
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
