Re: [pfr] Ready for informal mini review

From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-20 18:27:11

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 20:15 Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> пн, 19 окт. 2020 г. в 23:44, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]>:
>
<...>

> > 4. "simple aggregate" should not be listed as a "limitation, but instead
> be defined as a concept or type requirement. Definitions of functions in
> PFR should refer to it as requirements.
>
> I'm not very comfortable with the concept changing its requirements
> depending on the C++ standard and compiler implementation.
> 'Limitation' seems to be a better word.
>

I've just noted the PR https://github.com/boostorg/pfr/pull/58
You're right, much better that way! Many thanks