On 2/28/21 12:55 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/11/21 5:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in vari
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/11/21 5:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
> > > > types in various contexts, an
On 2/11/21 5:14 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
dependent.
Firstly, when evalua
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
> > types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
> > dependent.
> >
> > Firstly, when evaluating the return type re
On 2/8/21 2:03 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
dependent.
Firstly, when evaluating the return type requirement of a compound
requirement, we currently substitute th
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This fixes the way we check satisfaction of constraints on placeholder
> types in various contexts, and in particular when the constraint is
> dependent.
>
> Firstly, when evaluating the return type requirement of a compound
> requirement, we currently s