[PATCH] [DOCS] Update the docs with regards to the removed LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION

Reid Kleckner rnk at google.com
Fri Feb 27 10:36:32 PST 2015


I think we should nuke the section. Using '= delete' on copy members is a
widely known C++ design pattern. Yaron filed
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22724, which makes me think we have
consensus. Done in r230776.

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 1:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it'd be easier to review/discuss if you just paste the complete
> proposed wording into this/an email & we'll see how it looks?
>
> deleted functions (especially non-special-member-deleted functions) should
> be quite rare & hardly likely for someone to stumble across them & decide
> to use them for the wrong reasons. For deleting special members, I wouldn't
> mind a "rule of zero" mention and maybe "just write the members you need"
> ... and /maybe/ a "here's the idiomatic way to make your type non-copyable
> and non-movable" (& we should pick what that idiom is - delete all 4
> special members? delete 1 that causes the other 3 to be deleted? (deleting
> either the move ctor or move assignment operator) deleting 1 and leaving a
> comment?)
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Dylan McKay <dylanmckay34 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There isn't anything LLVM-specific, but I thought it might be a good idea
>> to keep it.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150227/db8a03bc/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list