[cfe-dev] [libcxx] RFC: C++14 and beyond

Marshall Clow mclow.lists at gmail.com
Mon May 6 08:24:52 PDT 2013

On May 2, 2013, at 3:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 2013 6:53 AM, "Howard Hinnant" <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote:
> > This indicates that even the post-C++11 additions of constexpr to chrono::time_point and tuple have the potential to break code.
> My understanding based on casual conversation (not committee attendance/debate) was that user code was essentially told "don't do this" and implementations were free to make more functions constexpr than the standard requires at any time. Is that the case?

I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

In Portland, there was a session where Core and LWG got together and decided to hammer out this issue "once and for all", since it kept coming up.

Three hours later, there was no consensus on the "correct" answer was, and the issue was tabled.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Idio Software   <mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com>

A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
        -- Yu Suzuki

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130506/9a2bc875/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list