Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Template qualifiers
From: Phil Bouchard (phil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-10-05 00:43:18
It can't break the standards because you're adding a new syntax, you're
not replacing one or hijacking the template token types.
For the rest maybe I can help but you seem to be more aware of the
latest standards than I am.
Also IMO this is really important in order to keep the standards as
clean and simple as possible.
On 10/5/19 1:37 AM, Brian Bi wrote:
> I'd be willing to write a proposal but it would be a lot of work, so
> I'm curious whether people think this would be something good to have
> in addition to P0847, before I go ahead and write it up.
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 12:19 AM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
> <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> Are we moving forward with the syntax Brian suggested? It seems
> good to me...
> On 10/4/19 11:31 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>> But Brian came up with a better syntax.
> *Phil Bouchard*
> C.: (819) 328-4743
> Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]>
> /Brian Bi/
-- *Phil Bouchard* Founder C.: (819) 328-4743 Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
STD-PROPOSALS list run by email@example.com
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups