[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D102468: [libcxx][ranges] removes default_initializable from weakly_incrementable and view

[Christopher Di Bella via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

cjdb added a comment.

In D102468#2810855 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102468#2810855>, @Quuxplusone wrote:

> LGTM modulo comments.
> (My previous round of comments went in just before the update to include `ostream_iterator` et al.)

Not sure what you mean here. I transformed this patch in one step. If there's something I've missed, it's always been missed, so please let me know if that's the case.



================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/iterators/iterator.requirements/iterator.concepts/iterator.concept.winc/subsumption.verify.cpp:33
 
-static_assert(check_subsumption<int*>());
+static_assert(check_subsumption<int*>()); // expected-error {{call to 'check_subsumption' is ambiguous}}
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> What is this test supposed to be testing?
It's gone from a subsumption confirmation test to a subsumption regression test, making sure that `weakly_incrementable` doesn't subsume `default_initializable`.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.req/range.view/view.subsumption.verify.cpp:55-65
 namespace subsume_default_initializable {
-  template <std::ranges::view>
-  constexpr bool test() { return true; }
-  template <std::default_initializable>
-  constexpr bool test() { return false; }
-  static_assert(test<View>());
+template <std::ranges::view>
+constexpr bool test() {
+  return true;
+}
+template <std::default_initializable>
+constexpr bool test() {
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> This test is now wrong. Please remove lines 55-65, and undo the file move.
Why is it wrong?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102468/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102468