On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 04:45, nick wrote:
> My other question is related to the noexcept parts and that either I or
> you should move and CC the other involed list i.e. the llibstdc++ list.
Oh I didn't realise this thread wasn't already on that list. Yes, we
should be discussing it there, not here.
Sent offlist.
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 20:06, nick wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-12-02 11:53 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:46 PM nick wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
> This
On 2018-12-02 11:53 a.m., David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:46 PM nick wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause wrote:
This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
to meet
On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:46 PM nick wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >>
> >> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
> >> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here:
> >
On 2018-12-01 10:32 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>
>> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
>> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here:
>> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899.
>
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 20:54, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here:
> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899.
This isn't "the spec", it's a proposed (but incorrect) res
This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause
to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here:
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --gi
