On 2018/07/06 09:12:32, dak wrote:
On 2018/07/05 21:32:25, Dan Eble wrote: > On 2018/07/05 12:20:27, dak wrote: > The rationale is that std::optional is fit for this situation and if
LilyPond
> were built with C++17 I would simply have used it.
Any C++17 lookalike package is _not_ "simply using it"
not what I said
Let me remind you that your project on "use std;" was hampered by us
not having
been able to rid ourselves yet of std-vector.hh.
I recall that isnan was the final problem before I left off trying.
off leaving the cost of generalization for a future time when we can
just use
the generalized solution that somebody else has to bother with keeping
in
working order?
Expect an update. https://codereview.appspot.com/359770043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
