This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1

From: Tim Song <t dot canens dot cpp at gmail dot com>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>
Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 15:27:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <3e8c0773-23c6-0b33-8ea5-e26bc2bfd8ad@acm.org> <a12a15c1-13c6-1f4c-5d91-bc8d676596b9@gmail.com> <CAPQZVxvgCHhrv4B7EH9qpbQtOKX6ZRK10jKHasfOEL=bURrmkA@mail.gmail.com> <bf45672f-89b1-bf1b-384d-5ae02ae8b905@acm.org>

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
> On 05/16/2017 03:20 PM, Tim Song wrote:
>
>> Also, operator bool() seems suspect. Consider the safe bool idiom?
>
> ?
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Safe_bool

I suspect that we don't want adding two ovl_iterators together to compile.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

References:
- [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1
  - From: Martin Sebor
- Re: [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1
  - From: Tim Song
- Re: [C++ PATCH] OVERLOAD iterators #1
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]