Re: [v3] constexpr tuple

2011-09-08 Thread Marc Glisse
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

Re: [v3] constexpr tuple

2011-09-08 Thread Christopher Jefferson
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

Re: [v3] constexpr tuple

2011-09-08 Thread Paolo Carlini
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

Re: [v3] constexpr tuple

2011-09-06 Thread Daniel Krügler
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

[v3] constexpr tuple

2011-09-06 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
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