On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
This might be totally insane, but I believe that:
tuple_cat(tuple_cat(A,B), C) always equivalent to tuple_cat(A,B,C);
That's a fine way to find the return type, but for code, doesn't it
generate many copies? I think I'd forward_as_tuple and us
On 8 Sep 2011, at 18:34, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 07:44 AM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>> Is tuple_cat now considered conforming?
>> No, see:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50159
> By the way, Daniel, I was considering giving that issue a try, if you have
> tips (or ev
On 09/07/2011 07:44 AM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Is tuple_cat now considered conforming?
No, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50159
By the way, Daniel, I was considering giving that issue a try, if you
have tips (or even more ;) about the implementation of the C++11
conforming tup
2011/9/7 Benjamin Kosnik :
>
> Here's the tuple additions for constexpr now that it's ok to return
> this.
Btw.: I would have expected that you can make
__tuple_compare<>::__eq/__less also constexpr.
These are static functions, thus __tuple_compare
itself need not to be a literal type (Disclaimer
Here's the tuple additions for constexpr now that it's ok to return
this.
I'm not quite sure what to do with the get, tie, tuple_cat functions
given the current signatures. Is tuple_cat now considered conforming?
If so, certain signatures can be constexpr.
tested x86/linux
benjamin2011-09-06