Topic: [c++std-ext-16638] virtual constexpr fields
Author: Bjarne Stroustrup <bjarne@stroustrup.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:37:04 -0400
Raw View
On 3/18/2015 9:30 PM, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
> I don't know. This is a whole lot of complexity just to do cheaper
> RTTI. Wouldn't it make more sense to just add cheaper RTTI to C++?
Such as?
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Bjarne Stroustrup <bjarne@stroustrup.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:41:38 -0400
Raw View
On 3/18/2015 9:30 PM, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
> I don't know. This is a whole lot of complexity just to do cheaper
> RTTI. Wouldn't it make more sense to just add cheaper RTTI to C++?
Such as?
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.