<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Pete Cooper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peter_cooper@apple.com" target="_blank">peter_cooper@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Just as an aside, why have isPodLike if not to enable POD-like hackery? Seems like thats all its useful for?</blockquote>
</div><br>It is primarily an artifact of C++98 legacy, but removing it is quite tricky.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">However, the basis of my comment is that the hackery comes at a cost. There are some cases where it makes such a huge difference that we essentially have to use it (being able to memcpy large data structures for example). It is not at all clear that eliminating the tombstone splatting is a sufficient motivation, and increasingly with C++11 these should "just work" thanks to the standard-based type traits being compiler enforced.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>Cool. Thanks for the good explanation.</div><br></body></html>