> -----Original Message----- > From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Empty member initializers > > > > 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.
I'm adding a Wiki page listing these compiler requirements but I can only think of one or two ATM. What else should be on this list? Brad.
