Fix issues with pair #87
Conversation
| return pair_type<F, S>{std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<S>(s)}; | ||
| using decayed_F = std::decay_t<F>; | ||
| using decayed_S = std::decay_t<S>; | ||
| return pair_type<decayed_F, decayed_S>{std::forward<decayed_F>(f), std::forward<decayed_S>(s)}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use move here instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
std::forward will have the same semantics as std::move if F or S are r-value references.
You can think of std::forward as a more generic form of std::move.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will there be a return type mismatch with the function signature?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great point! Used auto return type instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jrhemstad yeah, I guess my point is that since decayed_F is not a reference type, then forward<decayed_F> will always return an r-value, so it's identical to just using move in this case - is my understanding correct here? and so I was thinking that move is just shorter to use here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose you could use std::forward with the original type as well
jrhemstad
added
type: feature request
|
Superseded by #319 |
remove_constinis_thrust_pair_likemake_pairto usedecay_tfor the element types