This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of LEWG status.
2307. Should the Standard Library useexplicit only when necessary?
Section: 23 [containers] Status: LEWG Submitter: Zhihao Yuan Opened: 2013-09-26 Last modified: 2018-11-12
Priority: 2
View other active issues in [containers].
View all other issues in [containers].
View all issues with LEWG status.
Discussion:
LWG 2193(i) yields explicit for default ctors to allow {}, but not for all cases of uniform initialization. For example:
explicit vector(size_type count, const Allocator& alloc = Allocator());
This prevents {n, alloc()}. Although this use is relatively rare, but the behavior is inconsistent with that of
vector(size_type count, const T& value, const Allocator& alloc = Allocator());
[Urbana 2014-11-07: Move to Open]
[2018-08 Batavia Monday issue discussion]
This really needs a paper; splitting a lot of constructors. Nevin to write paper.
[2018-11 San Diego Thursday night issue processing]
LEWG has rejected Nevin's paper, so they need to formulate a policy.
Proposed resolution:
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4