[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton
From: |
Frank Heckenbach |
Subject: |
Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton |
Date: |
Sun, 19 May 2019 12:58:41 +0200 |
Akim Demaille wrote:
> > Le 19 mai 2019 à 11:02, Hans Åberg <address@hidden> a écrit :
> >
> > Also a spelling error: copiable.
>
> I'm installing this. Thanks a lot Hans!
>
> fix: use copiable, not copyable
Am I missing something? Seems like "copyable" is a valid alternative
form:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copiable
and commonly used in C++:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/is_trivially_copyable
Regards,
Frank
- (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Don Macpherson, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton,
Frank Heckenbach <=
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Akim Demaille, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19
- Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton, Hans Åberg, 2019/05/19