std-discussion

Monday, 29 March 2021

• Re: requires-clause, pack expansion and constraints-ordering tobi_at
• Re: requires-clause, pack expansion and constraints-ordering Lénárd Szolnoki
• Old-style casts and prvalue materialization alternatives to reinterpret_cast Edward Catmur

Sunday, 28 March 2021

• Re: requires-clause, pack expansion and constraints-ordering Edward Catmur
• requires-clause, pack expansion and constraints-ordering tobi_at

Saturday, 27 March 2021

• Re: Should the constructor of std::reference_wrapper be explicit? Vladimir Grigoriev

Friday, 26 March 2021

• Re: Should the constructor of std::reference_wrapper be explicit? Vladimir Grigoriev
• Should the constructor of std::reference_wrapper be explicit? Vladimir Grigoriev
• Re: equality compare reference_wrapper Richard Hodges
• Re: equality compare reference_wrapper Bo Persson
• Re: Implicit object creation, arrays, and non-implicit lifetime objects language.lawyer_at
• Re: Implicit object creation, arrays, and non-implicit lifetime objects Jason McKesson
• Re: Implicit object creation, arrays, and non-implicit lifetime objects Jason McKesson
• Re: Implicit object creation, arrays, and non-implicit lifetime objects language.lawyer_at
• Implicit object creation, arrays, and non-implicit lifetime objects Jason McKesson
• equality compare reference_wrapper Bernard

Sunday, 21 March 2021

• Re: Difference between alias and non alias template when binding to template template arguments Omer Rosler
• Re: Difference between alias and non alias template when binding to template template arguments Thiago Macieira
• Difference between alias and non alias template when binding to template template arguments Omer Rosler

Friday, 19 March 2021

• Re: [std-proposals] We should use existing scientific research in building C++ modules Boris Kolpackov

Thursday, 18 March 2021

• Re: [std-proposals] We should use existing scientific research in building C++ modules Jason McKesson
• Re: [std-proposals] We should use existing scientific research in building C++ modules Michał Policht

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

• Re: Missing changes in P0012R1 Jason McKesson
• Missing changes in P0012R1 v.S. F.

Sunday, 14 March 2021

• Re: Two issues about the description of the instantiation of fold-expression in [temp.variadic] Andrew Schepler

Monday, 8 March 2021

• Two issues about the description of the instantiation of fold-expression in [temp.variadic] jim x

Sunday, 7 March 2021

• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Jason McKesson
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Andrey Semashev
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Lénárd Szolnoki
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Andrey Semashev
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Jason McKesson
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Andrey Semashev
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Andrey Semashev
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Thiago Macieira
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware David Bakin

Saturday, 6 March 2021

• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Vishal Oza
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware David Bakin
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Thiago Macieira
• Re: Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Jason McKesson
• Setting wording for bit manipulation for non-binary hardware Vishal Oza

Friday, 5 March 2021

• Do char arrays provide storage only for implicitly created objects? v.S. F.
• Re: Nested class declaration. Vishal Oza
• Re: Nested class declaration. Andrew Schepler

Thursday, 4 March 2021

• Nested class declaration. Vladimir Grigoriev
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Herring, Davis

Wednesday, 3 March 2021

• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Bell, Ian H. (Fed)
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Mark Hoemmen
• Re: Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Hyman Rosen
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Peter C++
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Bell, Ian H. (Fed)
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Herring, Davis
• Re: Overloading a virtual function with a non-virtual function with a requires-clause Tom Honermann
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Marcin Jaczewski
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Bell, Ian H. (Fed)
• Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Mark Hoemmen
• Overloading a virtual function with a non-virtual function with a requires-clause v.S. F.
• Re: Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Peter Sommerlad (C++)
• Re: Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Peter Sommerlad (C++)
• Re: Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) will wray
• Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double) Bell, Ian H. (Fed)

Monday, 1 March 2021

• Slight inconsistency in naming sections in member functions of some classes in the standard Semushin Sergey

Last message date: 2021-03-29 09:46:08