https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #9 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Created attachment 53419
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53419&action=edit
diff -y of current and proposed output
To compare the results more easily.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
Ulrich Drepper changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53410|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ulrich Drepper from comment #3)
> Again, more uniform and I'd say it should be encouraged to use std::get
> instead of .first / .second because it's compatible with std::tuple.
Which makes sen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Created attachment 53410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53410&action=edit
consistent pretty printing of contains
How about this patch?
I used the attached test case. With the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #5 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Or should the std::pair output even be
p1 = std::pair = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0}
??
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Ugh, this one is a pasto:
v1 = std::vector of length 0, capacity 0 = { }
instead of
v1 = std::vector of length 0, capacity 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper ---
Actually, I think for the std::pair definition I'd like to see
p1 = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0}
instead of
p1 = {first = 0, second = 0}
Again, more uniform and I'd say it should be encouraged to use std::get inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
Ulrich Drepper changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65230
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
