On 30/11/18 12:40 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind (and what I expect to get
proposed for C++20 in the near future).
What does everyone else think, should we go ahead and do this?
Yes, if we are confid
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind (and what I expect to get
> proposed for C++20 in the near future).
>
> What does everyone else think, should we go ahead and do this?
Yes, if we are confident that's what will be in C++20.
> The point
On 29/11/18 12:05 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I t
On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I think it would be a shame not to nudge this into gc
On 29/11/18 10:18 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 11/29/18 9:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Fixed with 266616.
Thanks!
Index: include/std/deque
===
--- include/std/deque (rev
On 11/29/18 9:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Fixed with 266616.
Thanks!
Index: include/std/deque
===
--- include/std/deque (revision 266567)
+++ include/std/deque (working co
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:47:15AM -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> --- include/std/deque (revision 266567)
> +++ include/std/deque (working copy)
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@
> #pragma GCC system_header
>
> #include
> +#include // For remove and remove_if
Isn't that too expensive, especially in non-
On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Fixed with 266616.
Thanks!
Index: include/std/deque
===
--- include/std/deque (revision 266567)
+++ include/std/deque (working copy)
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@
#pragma GCC system_header
On 11/28/18 7:25 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/11/18 12:12 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Index: testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc
===
--- testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc (nonexistent)
+++ testsuite/21_str
On 28/11/18 12:12 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Index: testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc
===
--- testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc(nonexistent)
+++ testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc(w
On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I think it would be a shame not to nudge this into gc
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I think it would be a shame not to nudge this into gcc-9.
The routines are very short so I just
12 matches
Mail list logo
