On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Tim Shen timshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
wrote:
.. I think it would be cleaner to have new, separate testcases, named after
2213. This is what we always did in the past when we implemented
.. I think it would be cleaner to have new, separate testcases, named
after 2213. This is what we always did in the past when we implemented
resolutions of DRs.
At minimum, refer to 2213 in a comment.
Paolo.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
The LWG have decided that
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2213 is a defect.
In our std::regex_replace we do not appear to update out in all places
that we should.
1) Yes, the current implementation
