Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[util.smartptr.atomic.{shared,weak}] Fix wording for initialization #7583

Merged

Conversation

frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

By using more conventional "value-initializes".

Fixes #7522.

By using more conventional "value-initializes".
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

p has class type with a non-trivial constructor. Even say "default-initializes" would work, or saying nothing and defaulting the default constructor. The latter is probably too large a hammer at this point.

@jwakely , I like the change proposed here as an incremental improvement.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe requested a review from jwakely February 9, 2025 16:19
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Feb 9, 2025

Agreed, this seems like a generally nicer way to express value initialization. @jwakely?

@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 2f42a31 into cplusplus:main Feb 11, 2025
2 checks passed
@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja deleted the atomic-shared-weak-ptr-value-init branch February 11, 2025 10:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[util.smartptr.atomic.shared][util.smartptr.atomic.weak] Weird wording for default constructors
4 participants