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:
> Ð¿Ð½, 19 Ð¾ÐºÑ. 2020 Ð³. Ð² 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk