On 13/11/15 09:11 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/11/15 08:39 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 11:09 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 08:48 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As
On 12/11/15 11:09 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 08:48 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values
On 13/11/15 08:39 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 11:09 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 08:48 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values outside the range of valid
values for the type. In C++11 that can be trivially solved by giving
the enumeration types a fixed underlying type, but
On 11/12/2015 10:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 08:48 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values outside the range of valid
values for the type. In
On 12/11/15 08:48 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values outside the range of valid
values for the type. In C++11 that can be trivially solved by giving
the
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values outside the range of valid
values for the type. In C++11 that can be trivially solved by giving
the enumeration types a fixed underlying type, but this code needs to
be valid in C++03 too.
This
