On Mar 15, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
I'm not sure I want to get in a long argument about this, but I'm not
convinced
this is good advice.
I don’t really care what we do - keep in mind, I had nothing to do with
introducing mozilla::Pair - but I think that we
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
I'm not sure I want to get in a long argument about this, but I'm not
convinced
this is good advice.
I don’t really care what we do - keep in mind, I
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:14 AM, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but it seems like std::pair is fairly
widely used in our
code base. Can you explain the circumstances in which you
On 3/15/2015 2:33 PM, Seth Fowler wrote:
I don’t really care what we do - keep in mind, I had nothing to do with introducing mozilla::Pair - but I think that we should
recommend the use of one thing, either std::pair or mozilla::Pair. If
we choose to prefer std::pair, we should probably
On Mar 15, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Joshua Cranmer pidgeo...@gmail.com wrote:
In general, std::pair should be preferred over mozilla::Pair unless you need
the empty type optimization.
If that’s the case, perhaps we should rename it to e.g. mozilla::CompactPair?
It’s current name strongly
5 matches
Mail list logo
