Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Clear to go ahead here?
> You mean apply the patch attached to STDCXX-1070? It looks good
> to me. I also checked the test. It's odd that the problem didn't
> get caught sooner (we did get errors when the function templates
> were declared static, which is why the static keyword is commented
> out). But it sure does look like a problem.
> FWIW, if you want quick input on a patch, I find it easier when
> it's posted to the list (instead of attaching it to the issue).
> Attaching it is useful when it's large and/or when you don't
> have commit permissions. Others may have a different preference.
My personal preference would be both.