[PATCH] D48616: Implement LWG 2946, 3075 and 3076

[Marshall Clow via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

mclow.lists added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/string:842
+        explicit basic_string(const _Tp& __t,
+                     typename enable_if<__can_be_converted_to_string_view<_CharT, _Traits, _Tp>::value, void>::type* = 0);
+
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> Is there a reason why you use a different `enable_if` pattern here (as a default argument) and above (as a default template argument)?
One for constructors, one for non-constructors.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17842478/select-class-constructor-using-enable-if


================
Comment at: include/string:1646
+         class _Allocator = allocator<_CharT>,
+         class = typename enable_if<__is_allocator<_Allocator>::value, void>::type
+         >
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> You don't need to specify the `void` in `enable_if<__is_allocator, void>::type`. There's no harm in specifying it, but I'm curious to know if there's a reason for it?
Habit, I guess - I always put the type into `enable_if`, even if I don't use it.  Sometimes I use `nullptr_t` instead of `void`.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D48616