[numarray] Remove incorrect comments for deleted default constructors#8962
Merged
jensmaurer merged 1 commit intocplusplus:mainfrom Apr 21, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
For archaeology: These comments were introduced in N2292, together with use of deleted functions in the standard library. |
jwakely
approved these changes
Apr 21, 2026
Member
jwakely
left a comment
jwakely
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should not delete those, and should just have no default ctors. But that would be a design change. Given that we do have deleted constructors, we should remove the incorrect comments on them.
jensmaurer
approved these changes
Apr 21, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Explicitly declaring a copy constructor doesn't make the default constructor deleted, but makes it not implicitly declared at all. So it's not quite correct to say "as implied by declaring copy constructor above" for these deleted default constructors.
Moreover, the difference between deleting and not having default constructor is observable, as shown in LWG3160.