Hello, >> It would be possible, of course, to conditionally define those constants to >> either use min() and max() >> or _Min and _Max, respectively: >> >> #if _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONSTEXPR >> static const result_type _Min = _Engine::_Min; >> static const result_type _Max = _Engine::_Max; >> #else >> static _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR const result_type _Min = _Engine::min(); >> static _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR const result_type _Max = _Engine::max(); >> #endif >> >> But this would depend on the non-standard members _Min and _Max. And it >> would complicate the source, too. >> >> What do you think? > > This looks like the way to go to me. I count 3 places in <random> and 1 > place in <algorithm> that need this treatment. User-written engines will > either have to -std=c++11, or provide the non-standard interface. I don't > see another way around this.
I have changed <random> and <algorithm> accordingly and attached the new patch. numerics/rand tests pass in C++03 and C++11 mode (except for the tests involving initializer_list). Jonathan
random.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
