Hi Jason,
On 23.04.2013 14:42, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 22.04.2013 17:42, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/10/2009 08:33 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
> > Attached are my latest experimental polymorphic lambda patches
> > against the latest lambda branch.
>
> Polymorphic lambdas were voted in for C++14 at
On 04/22/2013 12:42 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The proposal will be at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3649.html
It's now been posted at http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N3649.html
Jason
On 08/10/2009 08:33 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
Attached are my latest experimental polymorphic lambda patches against the
latest lambda branch.
Polymorphic lambdas were voted in for C++14 at the meeting this past
week; are you interested in resuming this work?
The proposal will be at
http:/
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> A few comments:
>
>> /* XXX: Any way to get current location? */
>
> input_location
Just a late comment: using input_location is generally not a good
idea. Every token in the parser has a location. That should be the
source of all location
On 08/11/2009 11:20 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
Ah okay. Would it be worth enhancing the tree-vec interface to include block
reallocation with size doubling and end
marking to allow for more efficient reallocation?
I don't think so; I expect that would end up being less space-efficient,
since in
Thanks for the feedback.
Jason Merrill wrote:
>Adam Butcher wrote:
>> The following examples produce
>> equivalent functions:
>>
>>1. [] (auto x, auto& y, auto const& z) { return x + y + z; }
>>2. [] (X x, Y& y, Z const& z) {
>> return x + y + z; }
>>3. [] (auto x, Y& y, auto
A few comments:
/* XXX: Any way to get current location? */
input_location
The following examples produce
equivalent functions:
1. [] (auto x, auto& y, auto const& z) { return x + y + z; }
2. [] (X x, Y& y, Z const& z) {
return x + y + z; }
3. [] (auto x, Y& y, auto const&
