As can be seen in [meta.type.synop], there is constant use of inline constexpr. This is likely not limited just to this area of the text.
Example:
|
template<class T> |
|
inline constexpr bool @\libglobal{is_void_v}@ = is_void<T>::value; |
|
template<class T> |
|
inline constexpr bool @\libglobal{is_null_pointer_v}@ = is_null_pointer<T>::value; |
|
template<class T> |
|
inline constexpr bool @\libglobal{is_integral_v}@ = is_integral<T>::value; |
I had previously believed constexpr is implicitly inline for static data members, as specified in [dcl.constexpr]:
|
A function or static data member |
|
declared with the \tcode{constexpr} or \tcode{consteval} specifier |
|
is implicitly an inline function or variable\iref{dcl.inline}. |
Is inline constexpr used for clarity of the text?
I'll assume that this is not a mistake, so please let me know the reasoning. Alternatively, if it's not useful to have inline constexpr here, I can remove it and submit a pull request.
Thanks for your time!
As can be seen in [meta.type.synop], there is constant use of
inline constexpr. This is likely not limited just to this area of the text.Example:
draft/source/utilities.tex
Lines 16155 to 16160 in 51c8df6
I had previously believed
constexpris implicitlyinlinefor static data members, as specified in [dcl.constexpr]:draft/source/declarations.tex
Lines 709 to 711 in 87ac40a
Is
inline constexprused for clarity of the text?I'll assume that this is not a mistake, so please let me know the reasoning. Alternatively, if it's not useful to have
inline constexprhere, I can remove it and submit a pull request.Thanks for your time!