Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-29 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
On 09/05/2019 16:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 15:43, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> On 07/05/2019 13:21, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 07/05/19 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 07/05/19 11:05 +0200, Christophe Lyo

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 15:43, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > On 07/05/2019 13:21, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> > >> On 07/05/19 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>> On 07/05/19 11:05 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 16

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-09 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
On 07/05/2019 13:21, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 07/05/19 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 07/05/19 11:05 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 16:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100,

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 04/05/19 15:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/03/17 17:49 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12/03/17 13:16 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote: The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. Notes: My interpretation is that hash

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-07 Thread Christophe Lyon
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 12:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 07/05/19 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >On 07/05/19 11:05 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >>On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 16:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>> > >>>On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 23/03/17 17:49 +00

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 07/05/19 10:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 07/05/19 11:05 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 16:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/03/17 17:49 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12/03/17 13:16 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote:

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 07/05/19 11:05 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 16:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >On 23/03/17 17:49 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>On 12/03/17 13:16 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote: >>>The following is an *untested* patch suggesti

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-07 Thread Christophe Lyon
On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 16:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >On 23/03/17 17:49 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>On 12/03/17 13:16 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote: > >>>The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. > >>> > >>>Notes: My in

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2019-05-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/05/19 23:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/03/17 17:49 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12/03/17 13:16 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote: The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. Notes: My interpretation is that hash should be defined outside of the _GLIBCXX_COMPATI

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2017-03-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/03/17 13:16 +0100, Daniel Krügler wrote: The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. Notes: My interpretation is that hash should be defined outside of the _GLIBCXX_COMPATIBILITY_CXX0X block, please double-check that course of action. That's right. I noticed that th

Re: [PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2017-03-21 Thread Daniel Krügler
2017-03-12 13:16 GMT+01:00 Daniel Krügler : > The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. > > Notes: My interpretation is that hash should be > defined outside of the _GLIBCXX_COMPATIBILITY_CXX0X block, please > double-check that course of action. > > I noticed that the preexist

[PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Krügler
The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify. Notes: My interpretation is that hash should be defined outside of the _GLIBCXX_COMPATIBILITY_CXX0X block, please double-check that course of action. I noticed that the preexisting hash did directly refer to the private members of er