Hi,
"François Dumont" ha scritto:
> Ok to commit ?
No, it's definitely not Ok, we don't want to add std::is_copy_assignable
specializations like this.
Jon will send you more comments.
Thanks,
Paolo
On 04/17/2013 10:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 4/17/13 8:43 PM, François Dumont wrote:
On 04/17/2013 09:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 4/17/13 8:10 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is an other proposal to fix
std::is_copy_assignable>.
Sorry, I'm still missing something very, very
On 04/17/2013 10:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 4/17/13 8:43 PM, François Dumont wrote:
On 04/17/2013 09:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 4/17/13 8:10 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is an other proposal to fix
std::is_copy_assignable>.
Sorry, I'm still missing something very, very
Hi,
On 4/17/13 8:43 PM, François Dumont wrote:
On 04/17/2013 09:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 4/17/13 8:10 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is an other proposal to fix
std::is_copy_assignable>.
Sorry, I'm still missing something very, very basic: which behavior
is conforming, the cur
On 04/17/2013 09:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 4/17/13 8:10 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is an other proposal to fix
std::is_copy_assignable>.
Sorry, I'm still missing something very, very basic: which behavior is
conforming, the current one or what we would get instead? If the
fo
On 4/17/13 8:10 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is an other proposal to fix
std::is_copy_assignable>.
Sorry, I'm still missing something very, very basic: which behavior is
conforming, the current one or what we would get instead? If the former,
is there a DR arguing for the latter?
Hi
Here is an other proposal to fix std::is_copy_assignable>.
This is not perfect because I have adapted it to current compiler
behavior but it is still better than current behavior and enough to
commit the unordered C++11 allocator adaptation afterward. It will give
me more time to w
On 04/14/2013 03:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Does DR 1402 resolution generalization need a Standard committee validation
first ?
I cannot see why we would want otherwise :-)
-- Gaby
I rather wonder if gcc only accept modifications that has been validated
by the Standard committee first or
> Does DR 1402 resolution generalization need a Standard committee validation
> first ?
I cannot see why we would want otherwise :-)
-- Gaby
On 04/13/2013 09:21 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Does DR 1402 resolution generalization need a Standard committee
validation first ?
In my opinion, it's much more clear to send the C++ front-end patch
*separately* together with a simple C++-only (no library) testcase. I
would also CC Jason.
Pao
Hider
Here is a patch already posted to libstdc++ mailing but I am
resending following libstdc++ maintainers advises to add gcc-patches
mailing list.
This patch proposal is to fix the behavior of std::pair regarding
the std::is_*_assignable meta programming functions.
As annou
11 matches
Mail list logo
