Den fre 11 jan. 2019 kl 20:11 skrev Thiago Macieira :
>
> On Friday, 11 January 2019 09:16:20 PST Konstantin Ritt wrote:
> > +1 for []()
>
> Let's use <:]() instead.
:D Perfect, and looks kinda like santa.
Elvis
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> Software Architect - I
On Friday, 11 January 2019 09:16:20 PST Konstantin Ritt wrote:
> +1 for []()
Let's use <:]() instead.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
Development mailing list
Develop
+1 for []()
Regards,
Konstantin
чт, 10 янв. 2019 г. в 15:51, Vitaly Fanaskov :
> I vote for shorter form as well.
>
> But the documentation should be extended with the Philippe's second
> example. Trailing return type is rarely required, but we cannot omit
> parameters list in this case, becau
I vote for shorter form as well.
But the documentation should be extended with the Philippe's second
example. Trailing return type is rarely required, but we cannot omit
parameters list in this case, because it leads to compilation error.
On 1/9/19 8:31 PM, Philippe wrote:
> I like the shorter
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:44 PM "André Hartmann" wrote:
> My request to syncronize both [3] lead to the conclusion, to change the
> rule,
> so that empty parameter lists should be written as
>
> [] { // lambda content }
>
If I were to vote, which I won't, I'd vote instead to make the expression
I like the shorter form, but keep in mind that when the return type
needs to be specified,
[] ->foo { // lambda content }
is not possible, and following is needed:
[]() -> foo { // lambda content }
Philippe
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:08:46 +0100
"André Hartmann" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently f
Hi all,
I recently found an inconsistency regarding empty lambda parameter lists
between [1] and [2]. While the first states, that parentheses have to be
written always, the latter is missing this section.
My request to syncronize both [3] lead to the conclusion, to change the rule,
so that empty
