I'm curious and not necessarily opposed to adding c-specific material to the site, but we want to make sure we do it in a planned and consistent way that will make sense to our users.
By the way, i'm curious how you'd tackle overloads that appear on different pages, such as single-argument std::move vs 3/4-argument std::move or the single-argument std::remove vs 2/3/4.
I am curious about the reasoning behind placing references to the iso c standard on nagivation pages, such as c/string/byte, c/chrono, etc.
I undid the introduction of iso references to [c/string], which was.
But still, i'm curious if the begin is defined in terms of the code block.
Liamfitz (talk) 12:52, 17 march 2020 (pdt) i believe this originates from [intro. execution]/1 an instance of each object with automatic.
Done p0528r3 (the curious case of padding bits, featuring atomic compare-and-exchange) done by cubbi p0722r3 (efficient sized delete for variable sized classes)
The curious thing is that both code snippets the article's author explicitly provides as examples of illegal constructs (the one with vectors and the one with maps) seem to work for me, both in gcc and in clang.