Closed rakhimov closed 8 years ago
This is likely to have conflicts with #144 . I will rebase this PR after #144 gets merged to resolve the conflicts.
Nice. I would put the different scenarios into separate tests. But I guess it doesn't matter much.
Oops, there's a conflict. Can I improve the test a bit when I solve the conflict? Or you want to do it?
@terryyin I rebased the branch, but merge #144 first because there might be conflicts again. I will rebase again if that happens.
Is this already included in another pull-request?
No, I will rebase this right now.
This is ready.
The constexpr inside of the noexcept is messing the parser as a function declaration parentheses.
This change is