2017-03-12 13:16 GMT+01:00 Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>: > The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. > > Notes: My interpretation is that hash<error_condition> should be > defined outside of the _GLIBCXX_COMPATIBILITY_CXX0X block, please > double-check that course of action. > > I noticed that the preexisting hash<error_code> did directly refer to > the private members of error_code albeit those have public access > functions. For consistency I mimicked that existing style when > implementing hash<error_condition>. > > - Daniel
I would just point out that I'm on vacations from Friday on for two weeks, so if any changes to this patch are requested, I will work on them after my return. Thanks, - Daniel
