Martin Sebor <[email protected]> writes: >> Clear to go ahead here? > > You mean apply the patch attached to STDCXX-1070? It looks good > to me. I also checked the test. It's odd that the problem didn't > get caught sooner (we did get errors when the function templates > were declared static, which is why the static keyword is commented > out). But it sure does look like a problem. > > FWIW, if you want quick input on a patch, I find it easier when > it's posted to the list (instead of attaching it to the issue). > Attaching it is useful when it's large and/or when you don't > have commit permissions. Others may have a different preference.
My personal preference would be both. > > Martin > >> >> Thanks, >> Liviu >> > Thanks, -- Wojciech Meyer http://danmey.org
