On 06/18/13, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 18 June 2013 07:04, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14
> faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float
> operator:
>
> constexpr complex
> operator"" i_f(); // fugl
On 18 June 2013 08:35, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> According to 2.14.8#10 this is ill-formed.
It's ill-formed for users to define it, but not ill-formed according
to the language grammar, and the compiler would need to implement that
grammar if operator""if gets added to the standard library (which
co
On 18 June 2013 07:04, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14
> faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float
> operator:
>
> constexpr complex
> operator"" i_f(); // fugly
>
> The obvious choice
> constexpr compl
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> writes:
> constexpr complex
> operator"" if();
According to 2.14.8#10 this is ill-formed.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely diffe
I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14
faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float
operator:
constexpr complex
operator"" i_f(); // fugly
The obvious choice
constexpr complex
operator"" if();
failed because 'if' is a keyword. The
