On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:50 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
[...snip...] Let me hypothesize a different interface:
This stays the same...
constexpr int constexpr_strncmp(const char *p, const char *q, size_t n) {
return !n ? 0 : *p != *q ? *p - *q : !*p ? 0 : constexpr_strncmp(p+1,
q+1,
On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
[Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
Hi,
One
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk
wrote:
[Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
Hi,
One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature
is that
On Oct 19, 2012, at 23:27 , Andy Gibbs andyg1...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:50 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
[...snip...] Let me hypothesize a different interface:
This stays the same...
constexpr int constexpr_strncmp(const char *p, const char *q, size_t n) {
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
[Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
Hi,
One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature is
that
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
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
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
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
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.
Yes, I completely agree, but I don't think
On Oct 20, 2012, at 20:23 , Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
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
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
[Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
Hi,
One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature is
that the same implementation must be provided for both the case of function
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk
wrote:
[Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
Hi,
One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr
feature
11 matches
Mail list logo
