Committed with the idiomatic approach.
I'll work on this additional check later.
On 12/01/23 22:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 18:25, François Dumont wrote:
On 12/01/23 13:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 05:52, François Dumont wrote:
Small update for an
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 18:25, François Dumont wrote:
>
> On 12/01/23 13:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 05:52, François Dumont wrote:
> >> Small update for an obvious compilation issue and to review new test
> >> case that could have lead to an infinite loop if the increment
On 12/01/23 13:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 05:52, François Dumont wrote:
Small update for an obvious compilation issue and to review new test
case that could have lead to an infinite loop if the increment issue was
not detected.
I also forgot to ask if there is more chance
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 05:52, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Small update for an obvious compilation issue and to review new test
> case that could have lead to an infinite loop if the increment issue was
> not detected.
>
> I also forgot to ask if there is more chance for the instantiation to be
> eli
Small update for an obvious compilation issue and to review new test
case that could have lead to an infinite loop if the increment issue was
not detected.
I also forgot to ask if there is more chance for the instantiation to be
elided when it is implemented like in the _Safe_local_iterator:
