[PATCH] Implement LWG 2686, hash<error_condition>

[Daniel Krügler]

2017-03-12 13:16 GMT+01:00 Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>:
> The following is an *untested* patch suggestion, please verify.
>
> Notes: My interpretation is that hash<error_condition> should be
> defined outside of the _GLIBCXX_COMPATIBILITY_CXX0X block, please
> double-check that course of action.
>
> I noticed that the preexisting hash<error_code> did directly refer to
> the private members of error_code albeit those have public access
> functions. For consistency I mimicked that existing style when
> implementing hash<error_condition>.
>
> - Daniel

I would just point out that I'm on vacations from Friday on for two
weeks, so if any changes to this patch are requested, I will work on
them after my return.

Thanks,

- Daniel