¡@
c++ Programming Glossary: lwgIf an operator is overloaded for a C++ class how could I use a default operator instead? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1142607/if-an-operator-is-overloaded-for-a-c-class-how-could-i-use-a-default-operator meeting as it broke some offsetof macro implementations LWG 273 . The solution reinterpret_cast unsigned char variable ..
Standard Library Containers with additional optional template parameters? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1469743/standard-library-containers-with-additional-optional-template-parameters do this. This would require a change in the standard. The LWG decided against making this change because it would break user..
Is there a non-atomic equivalent of std::shared_ptr? And why isn't there one in <memory>? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15129263/is-there-a-non-atomic-equivalent-of-stdshared-ptr-and-why-isnt-there-one-in really what they want to do. The final word from the LWG in Rapperswil that day was Reject CH 20. No consensus to make..
Using operator[] on empty std::vector http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3829788/using-operator-on-empty-stdvector studio 2010 vector share improve this question See LWG issue 464 . This is a known issue. C 0x which is partially implemented..
Why is std::for_each a non-modifying sequence operation? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/662845/why-is-stdfor-each-a-non-modifying-sequence-operation this question See this defect report they say The LWG believes that nothing in the standard prohibits function objects..
Why are std::vector::data and std::string::data different? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7518732/why-are-stdvectordata-and-stdstringdata-different desirable in C 98 03. In Oct. 2005 the committee voted in LWG 464 which added the const and non const data to vector and added..
How to compile/link Boost with clang++/libc++? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8486077/how-to-compile-link-boost-with-clang-libc And the signals library will fail to build due to LWG 2059 . But otherwise I think it works. share improve this answer..
Why doesn't emplace_back() use uniform initialization? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8782895/why-doesnt-emplace-back-use-uniform-initialization the standard on this very topic. http cplusplus.github.com LWG lwg active.html#2089 Also Luc Danton helped me understand the..
Why does the rvalue overload of `operator<<` for `basic_ostream` return an lvalue reference? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8828973/why-does-the-rvalue-overload-of-operator-for-basic-ostream-return-an-lvalu looks dangerous and like a defect. I skimmed through the LWG issue list and found this proposal hi @HowardHinnant . It indeed.. this question It's a defect and it is my fault sorry. LWG 1203 thanks for finding that for me is my current opinion of..
Why isn't there a std::shared_ptr<T[]> specialisation? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8947579/why-isnt-there-a-stdshared-ptrt-specialisation c c 11 shared ptr share improve this question The LWG Library Working Group of the C committee briefly considered.. there was never an actual written proposal in front of the LWG to do this. It never bubbled up anyone's priority list including.. have recently begun anew on this topic among a few LWG members and I have personally prototyped it. But there is still..
|