Re: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.

2019-09-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 09/09/19 13:04 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: On 9/9/19 5:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 06/09/19 18:08 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote: As the title says. was (correctly) delivered without comparison ops. so we chould check off p1085. Indeed, thanks! This includes the

Re: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.

2019-09-09 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland via gcc-patches
On 9/9/19 5:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 06/09/19 18:08 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote: As the title says. was (correctly) delivered without comparison ops. so we chould check off p1085. Indeed, thanks! This includes the status updates for constexpr lib diffs posted

Re: We should mark "Should Span be Regular? P1085R2" as well.

2019-09-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 06/09/19 18:08 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote: As the title says. was (correctly) delivered without comparison ops. so we chould check off p1085. Indeed, thanks! This includes the status updates for constexpr lib diffs posted previously. I also regenerated the html