On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:32 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On 1/16/19 4:48 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > This PR reports a bug where we select a non-const operator function and
> > then apply it to a const object. That's happening because the
> > expression 'c[0]' is not dependent, so we figure
On 1/16/19 4:48 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
This PR reports a bug where we select a non-const operator function and
then apply it to a const object. That's happening because the
expression 'c[0]' is not dependent, so we figure end up resolving it.
But the lambda capture logic doesn't capture
This PR reports a bug where we select a non-const operator function and
then apply it to a const object. That's happening because the
expression 'c[0]' is not dependent, so we figure end up resolving it.
But the lambda capture logic doesn't capture 'c' at that point and we
have a non-const
