On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > This patch uses the _Enable_default_constructor mixin to properly > delete the default constructors. It's a bit cumbersome, because we > have to add an initializer for the base class to every > ctor-initializer-list, but I think I prefer this to making the default > constructor a constrained template. >
I'm happy with either approach - my primary concern is making sure that is_constructible and friends work and don't lie, in a world where increasing numbers of library components depend on it. Though I'm a bit curious as to why you found this approach more preferable. Re the new DMI, my brain compiler says that _Sequence c = _Sequence(); breaks anything with an explicit copy/move constructor pre-C++17, but I also don't think we care about those, right?
