Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc16] Static Map Competency test
From: Karim Tarabishy (tarabishy_2020_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-28 05:06:19
> It's not bad. But you can do better, and *much* better if you use a
> C++ 1z (17) compiler.
So the better error part is related to using a better compiler? this is not
related to how I write my code or it is? It is just I did not pass on an
elegant compiler error requirement before and I wanted to know if this is
something related to the way I write the template function or just using a
> The "prove" is in bold for a reason: I want to see proof
So I had generated the assembly before and found that there is no assembly
code for the function when it is called in a constexpr context, on the other
hand it is inlined and code exist when it is called in non constexpr
context. So the proof is just uploading the assembly code?
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc16-Static-Map-Competency-test-tp4683366p4683926.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk