| 01:32.38 | blast007 | I guess the term I meant was lambda expressions, not closures. Is it okay to use C++11 lambda expressions in 2.6? |
| 01:36.07 | allejo | what's the min gcc version we'll be requiring for 2.6? cuz that's the only real concern, no? |
| 02:12.41 | blast007 | I'd have to try it on some older GCC versions I guess |
| 02:14.45 | blast007 | it *sounds* like GCC 4.5 might support lambdas |
| 02:16.28 | blast007 | if so, then even the latest CentOS should have a new enough GCC |
| 02:16.55 | blast007 | (CentOS 7 has GCC 4.8.5) |
| 02:17.48 | blast007 | Debian Jessie (current oldstable) has 4.9.2, Debian Wheezy (oldoldstable) has 4.7.2 |
| 02:39.48 | KaadmY | has Arch Linux |
| 02:39.51 | KaadmY | gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170630 |
| 03:00.16 | the_map | gcc 5.4.0 for linux mint mate |
| 05:21.46 | allejo | lambdas look like fun, so i'd be in favor as long as it doesn't cause issues with older gcc versions like a ranged-base for did |
| 05:22.01 | allejo | especially for 2.6 which is still in the distant future |
| 15:51.05 | *** join/#bzflag DTRemenak|RDP (~DTRemenak@2605:e000:7f0c:c401:e966:a4bb:97ca:708c) |
| 15:51.05 | *** join/#bzflag DTRemenak|RDP (~DTRemenak@about/essy/CrazyCoder/DTRemenak) |
| 15:51.05 | *** mode/#bzflag [+v DTRemenak|RDP] by ChanServ |
| 16:44.00 | *** join/#bzflag Notify (~notify@104.225.5.10) |
| 17:36.51 | *** join/#bzflag DTRemenak|RDP (~DTRemenak@about/essy/CrazyCoder/DTRemenak) |
| 17:36.51 | *** mode/#bzflag [+v DTRemenak|RDP] by ChanServ |