Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

enforce C++14 in cmake + added rxcpp::is_same_v C++14 compatible definition ... #581

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

RalphSteinhagen
Copy link
Contributor

... in view of >=C++17's std::is_same_v

see also post-PR discussion at: #572 (comment)

I tried to keep it as non-intrusive as possible and defined a rxcpp::is_same_v template pair in rx-trace.cpp since this seems to be the place that most (all?) of the other includes reference. Needed the static constexpr bool ... because C++14 does not allow for 'inline' and since is_same_v is a value and not type trait*.

@guhwanbae @kirkshoop hope and please let me know if this helps with the issue mentioned above.

P.S. *I noticed that the build times are quite large (possibly because of SFINAE, enable_ifs, etc.). Would be worthwhile to perhaps consider moving RxCpp to the current standard (C++20)?? ... more features (concepts), lots of goodies, ranges (that seem to be similar/related to RxCpp), simpler/more succinct code, and faster compile-times. Food for thought.

@RalphSteinhagen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kirkshoop @guhwanbae is there an issue with this PR? It has been open for quite some time.

There is already a huge body of implementations available and we are evaluating whether to use RxCpp in other applications (mostly C++20). Having fewer compiler warnings/cleaner code wouldn't harm.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant