> On Mar 15, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Joshua Cranmer š§ wrote:
> In general, std::pair should be preferred over mozilla::Pair unless you need
> the empty type optimization.
If thatās the case, perhaps we should rename it to e.g. mozilla::CompactPair?
Itās current name strongly suggests that it should
On 3/15/2015 2:33 PM, Seth Fowler wrote:
I donāt really care what we do - keep in mind, I had nothing to do > with introducing mozilla::Pair - but I think that we should
recommend > the use of one thing, either std::pair or mozilla::Pair. If
we choose > to prefer std::pair, we should probably r
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Seth Fowler wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I want to get in a long argument about this, but I'm not
> convinced
> > this is good advice.
>
> I donāt really care what we do - keep in mind, I had nothing to do
> On Mar 15, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I want to get in a long argument about this, but I'm not
> convinced
> this is good advice.
I donāt really care what we do - keep in mind, I had nothing to do with
introducing mozilla::Pair - but I think that we should reco
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Seth Fowler wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:14 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> > Sorry if this is a dumb question, but it seems like std::pair is fairly
> widely used in our
> > code base. Can you explain the circumstances in which you think we
> should be
> >
5 matches
Mail list logo
