On 05/11/20 22:12 +0200, Ville Voutilainen via Libstdc++ wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 21:52, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++
wrote:
On 05/11/20 19:09 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>The relational operators for std::optional were using the wrong types
>in the declval expressions used to constrain
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 21:52, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> On 05/11/20 19:09 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >The relational operators for std::optional were using the wrong types
> >in the declval expressions used to constrain them. Instead of using
> >const lvalues they were using non
On 05/11/20 19:09 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The relational operators for std::optional were using the wrong types
in the declval expressions used to constrain them. Instead of using
const lvalues they were using non-const rvalues, which meant that a type
might satisfy the constraints but then
The relational operators for std::optional were using the wrong types
in the declval expressions used to constrain them. Instead of using
const lvalues they were using non-const rvalues, which meant that a type
might satisfy the constraints but then give an error when the function
body was instanti
