[v3 PATCH] LWG 2766, LWG 2749

Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen@gmail.com
Fri Nov 18 14:02:00 GMT 2016


On 18 November 2016 at 15:54, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> I agree, but if we'd just refused to support such undefined behaviour
> in stage 1 we wouldn't now be in a position of saying we can't change
> it in stage 3.

I want to support the code that the previous attempt breaks. I don't
think I can do so without
concepts.



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list