Re: [boost] [pfr] Ready for informal mini review

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 20:15 Antony Polukhin wrote:

пн, 19 окт. 2020 г. в 23:44, Andrzej Krzemienski :

<...>

...

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