On Oct 20, 2012, at 20:23 , Richard Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jordan Rose wrote:
>>> While throwing things out there, why not just optionally allow constexpr
>>> functions to coexist with non-constexpr functio
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> Allow loops and the like in constexpr functions and be done with it. See my
>> comments on the C++ Extension Working Group when these (and related)
>> issues where brought up.
>
> Yes, I completely agree, but I don't think this solves the
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jordan Rose wrote:
>> While throwing things out there, why not just optionally allow constexpr
>> functions to coexist with non-constexpr functions of the same name, like
>> inline and non-inline?
I thi
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jordan Rose wrote:
> While throwing things out there, why not just optionally allow constexpr
> functions to coexist with non-constexpr functions of the same name, like
> inline and non-inline?
Or remove most of the restrictions on constexpr functions that were
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>
>> [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature is
>> that the same implementation must
On Oct 19, 2012, at 23:27 , Andy Gibbs wrote:
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:50 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>> [...snip...] Let me hypothesize a different interface:
>>
>> This stays the same...
>> constexpr int constexpr_strncmp(const char *p, const char *q, size_t n) {
>> return !n ? 0 : *
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature
>> is that the same implementation mus
On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Chandler Carruth
> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
>
> Hi,
>
> One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's con
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:50 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
[...snip...] Let me hypothesize a different interface:
This stays the same...
constexpr int constexpr_strncmp(const char *p, const char *q, size_t n) {
return !n ? 0 : *p != *q ? *p - *q : !*p ? 0 : constexpr_strncmp(p+1,
q+1, n-1)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
> >
> > [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr
> > feature is that the same implement
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>
> [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
>
> Hi,
>
> One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature is
> that the same implementation must be provided for both the case of function
> invocation substitutio
11 matches
Mail list logo
