Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:41:00 -0500
On 18 October 2013 11:26, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
> Would anyone like to summarize the EWG issue people desire to raise? Just
> making the optional int types non-optional? Something further than that as
> well?
> Nailing down CHAR_BIT? Anything else?
>
Well, if we are going to start nailing things down, I'm all for totally
ordering pointers with respect to operator<.
>
> Would anyone like to summarize the EWG issue people desire to raise? Just
> making the optional int types non-optional? Something further than that as
> well?
> Nailing down CHAR_BIT? Anything else?
>
Well, if we are going to start nailing things down, I'm all for totally
ordering pointers with respect to operator<.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Received on 2013-10-18 18:41:42