My vote is unchanged… +1 for on the object. Thanks, Mark > On Sep 15, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:40 AM David Kimura <dkim...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> Actually, it looks like Jake is right. According to documentation it's >> undefined behavior since it's not a template specialization. >> >> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/extending_std >> >> > Oh yeah, I know I rejected the idea for a reason the first time. Thanks for > pointing out the template specialization issue. > > -Jake
- Re: [Discuss] Moving away from virtual CacheableStri... David Kimura
- Re: [Discuss] Moving away from virtual Cacheable... Jacob Barrett
- [VOTE] Moving away from virtual CacheableStr... Mark Hanson
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from virtual Cach... Ernest Burghardt
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from virtual Cach... Mark Hanson
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from virtual Cach... Jacob Barrett
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from virtual... Mark Hanson
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Ernest Burghardt
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... David Kimura
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Jacob Barrett
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Mark Hanson
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Jacob Barrett
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Ernest Burghardt
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Jacob Barrett
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Ernest Burghardt
- Re: [VOTE] Moving away from vir... Jacob Barrett
- Re: [Discuss] Moving away from virtual CacheableStringPtr... Jacob Barrett