On 10/10/2011 1:52 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 12:38 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>
>> Bummer. I suggest adding an rvalue ref overload of operator%= that
>> shares an implementation with the const lvalue one. Should just be a few
>> lines of code. Is that a problem?
>
> Not really a prob
On 10/10/2011 2:08 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 1:52 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 12:38 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>
>>> Bummer. I suggest adding an rvalue ref overload of operator%= that
>>> shares an implementation with the const lvalue one. Should just be a few
>>> line
On 10/11/2011 2:04 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 2:08 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 1:52 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2011 12:38 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
Bummer. I suggest adding an rvalue ref overload of operator%= that
shares an implementation with t
On 10/11/2011 7:50 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Everything's green now, Eric. The problem was not pervasive after
> all; just a couple of fixes solved everything.
>
> There's no need to revert. It makes me wonder though if we've missed
> something that will blow up in the future. I'll probably hav
On 10/10/2011 4:50 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Everything's green now, Eric. The problem was not pervasive after
> all; just a couple of fixes solved everything.
Whew!
> There's no need to revert. It makes me wonder though if we've missed
> something that will blow up in the future. I'll probably
