"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Since there is no exact replacements
And that statement is false; and you do know that.
-- Gaby
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:48:06 +0100, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... which do not handle promotions. So you do not consider useful to have a
> min/max operator with promotion (so that it would work exactly like any
> other operator) just because there is a cheap version without promot
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
... which do not handle promotions. So you do not consider useful to have a
min/max operator with promotion (so that it would work exactly like any
other operator) just because there is a cheap version without promotion. And
my statement that min() and max() are not exact repla
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because the example was just an example. In real code, "3" is probably
a
variable of integer type, and "4.0f" is probably a variable of floating
point type.
>>>
>>> Which we have not seen yet, for the purpose of assessing the purpoted
>>>
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >> Because the example was just an example. In real code, "3" is probably a
| >> variable of integer type, and "4.0f" is probably a variable of floating
| >> point type.
| >
| > Which we have not seen ye
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because the example was just an example. In real code, "3" is probably a
>> variable of integer type, and "4.0f" is probably a variable of floating
>> point type.
>
> Which we have not seen yet, for the purpose of assessing the purpoted
> usefulness i
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >>> IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these
| >>> extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the
| >>> user community before we do that. Of all the ext
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:04:39AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > That is a rather weak argument. What is the type of the argument if
| > it were possible?
|
| float obviously. You follow the standard promotion/type resolution
| rules you alrea
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these
>>> extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the
>>> user community before we do that. Of all the extensions we've had, this
>>> one really hasn't been that
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:04:39AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> That is a rather weak argument. What is the type of the argument if
> it were possible?
float obviously. You follow the standard promotion/type resolution
rules you already handle for operators like +. Done correctly,
min/max a
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these
| > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the
| > user community before we do that. Of all the extensions w
On Mar 8, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, that sounds largely impossible. Can you point exactly which bug
are
you talking of? I know for a fact that the extension itself has
always
worked for basic rvalue usage, with basic types. Instead, I wou
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these
> > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the
> > user community before we do that. Of a
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these
> extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the
> user community before we do that. Of all the extensions we've had, this
> one really hasn't been that problemati
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, that sounds largely impossible. Can you point exactly which bug
>> are
>> you talking of? I know for a fact that the extension itself has always
>> worked for basic rvalue usage, with basic types. Instead, I would not
>> be
>> surprised if some mor
15 matches
Mail list logo