https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> LWG 2743 seems to be the wrong issue, I think https://wg21.link/lwg2114 is
> the right one.
Ah yes, this was an unintended mislinking on my side. Feel free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
LWG 2743 seems to be the wrong issue, I think https://wg21.link/lwg2114 is the
right one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2)
[..]
> I'm also not a fan of the name boolean_testable
Note that no-one yet has made an improved name suggestion for this thingee that
is discussed in LWG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2)
> I dislike the #ifdef parts.
I'm sorry for my misleading proposal. My extended proposal is not suggesting to
add this macro. I was using this macro solely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
I have now a working implementation available, my minimum requirement set is
summarized by the following trait definition:
//
// Utility to detect BooleanTestable types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
