On 2/28/21 12:55 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/11/21 5:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/11/21 5:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
> > > > types in various contexts,
On 2/11/21 5:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
dependent.
Firstly, when
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
> > types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
> > dependent.
> >
> > Firstly, when evaluating the return type
On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
dependent.
Firstly, when evaluating the return type requirement of a compound
requirement, we currently substitute
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
> types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
> dependent.
>
> Firstly, when evaluating the return type requirement of a compound
> requirement, we currently
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
dependent.
Firstly, when evaluating the return type requirement of a compound
requirement, we currently substitute the outer template arguments into
the
