22 Mar
2015
22 Mar
'15
2:47 a.m.
Louis Dionne wrote:
Eric Niebler <eniebler <at> boost.org> writes: ...
FWIW, these indices don't seem all that useful to me. What exactly was the desired behavior?
No idea :-)
The desired behavior was for indexing the sorted tuple to work like indexing the original tuple. That is, given tuple<char[4], char[2], char[1], char[5], char[3]>, you were supposed to produce another tuple for which get<0> still returns char[4], even though the first element is physically char[1].