Re: C++ PATCH for range-for tweak

2016-04-22 Thread Jason Merrill
On 03/14/2016 10:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 03/14/2016 05:30 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jason Merrill: P08184R0: Generalizing the Range-Based For Loop How can one resolve this reference? It's obviously not a PR number in GCC Bugzilla. I found this after some searching:

Re: C++ PATCH for range-for tweak

2016-03-15 Thread Florian Weimer
* Jason Merrill: > On 03/14/2016 05:30 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Jason Merrill: >> >>> P08184R0: Generalizing the Range-Based For Loop >> >> How can one resolve this reference? It's obviously not a PR number in >> GCC Bugzilla. >> >> I found this after some searching: >> >>

Re: C++ PATCH for range-for tweak

2016-03-14 Thread Jason Merrill
On 03/14/2016 05:30 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jason Merrill: P08184R0: Generalizing the Range-Based For Loop How can one resolve this reference? It's obviously not a PR number in GCC Bugzilla. I found this after some searching:

Re: C++ PATCH for range-for tweak

2016-03-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Jason Merrill: > P08184R0: Generalizing the Range-Based For Loop How can one resolve this reference? It's obviously not a PR number in GCC Bugzilla. I found this after some searching: But it lacks the additional

C++ PATCH for range-for tweak

2016-03-14 Thread Jason Merrill
A proposal accepted at the last meeting allows the deduced iterator and end variables in range-based for to have different types, as long as they can be compared. This is a very simple change, limited to C++1z mode, and desired by some of the heaviest users of concepts, so I'm going to go