mclow.lists marked 13 inline comments as done.
mclow.lists added a comment.
I missed the container constructors being `noexcept`, and the asserts on
`operator[]` and `operator()` are half done (stupid signed indicies).
I'll wait for other feedback before doing those bits.
================
Comment at: include/span:320
+ constexpr span<element_type, dynamic_extent>
+ inline _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
+ subspan(index_type __offset, index_type __count = dynamic_extent) const
noexcept
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> I think we generally put those annotations before the return type. Consider
> doing so here and below for consistency.
I'm not sure where you're referring to "and below". We already do so for the
other `subspan`.
But definitely here.
================
Comment at: include/span:335-336
+
+ _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY constexpr reference operator[](index_type __idx)
const noexcept { return __data[__idx]; }
+ _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY constexpr reference operator()(index_type __idx)
const noexcept { return __data[__idx]; }
+ _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY constexpr pointer data()
const noexcept { return __data; }
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> Those two could have a `_LIBCPP_ASSERT(__idx >= 0 && __idx < size())`. Is it
> a conscious choice not to put one?
D'oh! only half done!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49338
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
