Looks good.
Jason
> Thanks a lot. Now I'm afraid that some of these nice clarifications,
> delicate technical details included, may get lost. Do you think they exist
> already in some of your design documents, papers, etc. Then a reference in
> the code would do. Otherwise, please consider adding some of the above t
Hi,
On 07/26/2013 03:23 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
Isn't the name a little misleading? I immediately wondered what was wrong
with std::is_same. IMHO something a little longer/technical clarifying that
the trait isn't just about comparing types is in order...
Sure.
First, it means we don't have t
> Isn't the name a little misleading? I immediately wondered what was wrong
> with std::is_same. IMHO something a little longer/technical clarifying that
> the trait isn't just about comparing types is in order...
Sure.
First, it means we don't have to instantiate any class templates in
order to
Hi,
On 07/26/2013 02:11 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
This patch implements a new trait __is_same_as. This is foundational
for future work on concepts in that it provides a mechanism for
reasoning about type equivalences.
Isn't the name a little misleading? I immediately wondered what was
wrong with
This patch implements a new trait __is_same_as. This is foundational
for future work on concepts in that it provides a mechanism for
reasoning about type equivalences.
It also provides the correct preconditions for __is_convertible_to as
required in meta.rel.
2013-07-26 Andrew Sutton
* gcc
