On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 22/04/2010 03:30, tbp wrote: > >> What's the deal with constexpr (or what can i reasonably expect)? > > You can *reasonably* expect the documented behaviour from the compiler. Or > you can *un*reasonably ignore the documentation, make ill-informed guesses > about what the compiler ought to do, and complain when they turn out not to be > correct. > > On 22/04/2010 07:29, tbp wrote: > >> Ah, so it was nothing but smokes & mirrors. > > No, you are merely ignorant of the facts. As it clearly says on the changes > page: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html >> Improved experimental support for the upcoming C++0x ISO C++ standard, >> including support for raw strings, lambda expressions and explicit type >> conversion operators. > > (notice no mention of constexpr there) and if you follow the link to the C++0x > implementation status page: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/cxx0x_status.html >> Language Feature Proposal Available in GCC 4.5? >> Generalized constant expressions N2235 No > > so any disappointment is caused solely by your own baseless assumptions and > failure to properly read and comprehend what was in front of your eyes. > >> Thanks for the clarification. > > Please, don't trouble yourself with adding insincere thanks to an insult; > it's not worth the effort for you or anyone else so you may as well save > yourself the time.
Hi, Is there really a need for an angry reply like this? Is it better to just give some advises instead? David > > cheers, > DaveK >
