Le 10/01/13 22:10, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
Le 10/01/13 20:47, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 10/01/13 20:12, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
Le 10/01/13 19:13, Andrey Semashev a écrit : The constructor doesn't make any difference, it's the at() method body
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: that causes the error. Yes it does. The implicit default constructor is constexpr when possible, so defining it constexpr explicitly doesn't make any difference.
Maybe you are right. I said that because clang was requiring it but gcc-4.7 accept the default constructor as a constexpr.
I have checked it and you were right. "If that user-written default constructor would satisfy the requirements of a constexpr constructor (7.1.5), the implicitly-defined default constructor is constexpr" It seems that clang 3.2 has a bug here. Thanks, Vicente