[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton
|
From: |
Hans Åberg |
|
Subject: |
Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton |
|
Date: |
Sun, 19 May 2019 18:29:51 +0200 |
> On 19 May 2019, at 18:09, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Le 19 mai 2019 à 14:34, Hans Åberg <address@hidden> a écrit :
>>
>>> I'll revert that for 3.4.1 then…
>>
>> You must choose what you feel is best.
>
> With regards to C++, I have no doubt, as proved by Frank's pointer.
Almost all uses of “copyable” come from C++11 it seems: The C++98 standard only
has two occurrences. A net search with it and C++ gives 45 million hits,
without C++ only a hundredth of that.
- (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Don Macpherson, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Frank Heckenbach, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton,
Hans Åberg <=
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19