Paul Eggert egg...@cs.ucla.edu writes:
but would his comments be addressed by Autoconf macros that
cause config.h to #define HAVE_CONSTEXPR rather than #defining
constexpr, etc.? Or would that just be too awkward? I guess
I don't know the usage scenario here.
Sure, that would work too.
On 02/04/13 00:51, Miles Bader wrote:
I expect these days pretty much every significant compiler
supports const anyway,
I think that was always true for C++, which is why the
issue never came up for 'const' and C++. There were
a few old C programs that used 'const' as identifiers,
but they had
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 01:52:18PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
The attached patch introduces three macros:
AC_CXX_CONSTEXPR
AC_CXX_FINAL
AC_CXX_NULLPTR
which behave like AC_C_CONST et al but are for the new
C++11 constextr, final and
On 02/02/2013 06:01 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
The attached patch introduces three macros:
AC_CXX_CONSTEXPR
AC_CXX_FINAL
AC_CXX_NULLPTR
which behave like AC_C_CONST et al but are for the new
C++11 constextr, final and nullptr keywords.
Sorry, I don't know C++, so I'm not really qualified
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 01:02:04PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 02/02/2013 06:01 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
The attached patch introduces three macros:
AC_CXX_CONSTEXPR
AC_CXX_FINAL
AC_CXX_NULLPTR
which behave like AC_C_CONST et al but are for the new
C++11 constextr, final and
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
The attached patch introduces three macros:
AC_CXX_CONSTEXPR
AC_CXX_FINAL
AC_CXX_NULLPTR
which behave like AC_C_CONST et al but are for the new
C++11 constextr, final and nullptr keywords.
All of these seem a bit questionable...
The problem
