Closed joaquintides closed 6 months ago
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://234.unordered.prtest2.cppalliance.org/libs/unordered/doc/html/unordered.html
Interesting. Are such allocators conforming? The latest allocator requirement table seems to say so; was it always such, or is this a recent change?
(Apart from those philosophical questions, I don't see anything wrong with the change.)
Interesting. Are such allocators conforming? The latest allocator requirement table seems to say so; was it always such, or is this a recent change?
I don't know for sure. If you refer to the A a(b)
clause, with b
being a rebound type from A
, this seems to have been that way since ever; I couldn't find anything else explicitly allowing implicit convertibility.
Seems intentional because the same type entries explicitly mandate A a2 = a;
to also work.
Looks like C++03 only had the X a(b);
requirement, C++11 added the X a1(a);
requirement, and C++14 added X a1 = a;
.
This seems a bit accidental to me.
This seems a bit accidental to me.
Probably. If I recall correctly, though, Chris commented this issue actually hit a real user, so it doesn't hurt to have it fixed.
Yeah, I know, I was just wondering whether such allocators are allowed.
Fixes #204