On 5 March 2014 19:36, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > this issue got delayed in LWG, apparently because of a failed "improvement" > to the wording along the way (happens, that's ok), but there seems to be a > consensus on the resolution and I don't really see the point of waiting (it > changes code that currently returns a reference to a temporary). > > Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Stage 1?
Yes, OK for Stage 1. Please put _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_DEFECTS (or whatever it is we use elsewhere) in the comment, rather than just "DR 2106". I think the point of that is to be able to grep for all DR fixes (especially ones that aren't actually accepted as defects yet :-) Thanks.
