On Monday, 8 October 2018 09:12:26 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 08/10/2018 02.23, Henry Skoglund wrote:
> > So, what about a new preprocessor command:
> >
> > __has_same_md6_digest
>
> See also http://wg21.link/p0538 and note that EWG rejected it. The
> general consensus, AFAICT, is that modul
On 2018-10-08 18:12, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 08/10/2018 02.23, Henry Skoglund wrote:
So, what about a new preprocessor command:
__has_same_md6_digest
See also http://wg21.link/p0538 and note that EWG rejected it. The
general consensus, AFAICT, is that modules is expected to make all this
st
On 08/10/2018 02.23, Henry Skoglund wrote:
> So, what about a new preprocessor command:
>
> __has_same_md6_digest
See also http://wg21.link/p0538 and note that EWG rejected it. The
general consensus, AFAICT, is that modules is expected to make all this
stuff irrelevant, and therefore EWG does not
On Monday, 8 October 2018 01:50:04 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 October 2018 01:56:47 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> >> Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against
> >> us starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout
> >> our code base?
>
> Thiago
On Sunday, 7 October 2018 01:56:47 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
>> Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against
>> us starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout
>> our code base?
Thiago Macieira (7 October 2018 20:39) wrote:
> For example, I have ~/src as a bi
> On Friday, 5 October 2018 08:35:10 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> Cons:
>>> Suppresses move construction as in
>>>QCborValue v = array[n];
>>> this still compiles, but passes through the copy constructor, not
>>> the move one. We cana add an extra move constructor for const
>>> QCborValue &&
