On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> wrote:
> While throwing things out there, why not just optionally allow constexpr > functions to coexist with non-constexpr functions of the same name, like > inline and non-inline? Or remove most of the restrictions on constexpr functions that were necessary only to win approval for C++11. This case doesn't strike me as one of those where you fight complexity with even greater complexity. Allow loops and the like in constexpr functions and be done with it. See my comments on the C++ Extension Working Group when these (and related) issues where brought up. -- Gaby
