On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Allow loops and the like in constexpr functions and be done with it. See my >> comments on the C++ Extension Working Group when these (and related) >> issues where brought up. > > Yes, I completely agree, but I don't think this solves the whole > problem. There are certain constructs which we are unlikely to *ever* > permit in constexpr functions, such as (as an extreme case) inline > assembly. Where possible, we should share an implementation between > compile time and runtime. This proposal is for the exceptional cases > (which, over time, should become fewer and fewer), and as a stopgap > measure while we work towards the right solution. I am just back to College Station. We should coodinate for the post-Portland mailing. If I can have your current draft by tomorrow morning, that would be great. -- Gaby
