fix: allow EICrecon to compile with fmt-9.1.0 #420
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
While fmt-8.1.1 seems to fall back to ostream operators for types without a formatter specialization, this does not seem to be thr case for fmt-9.1.0. This adds explicit ostream_formatters for the necessary types. Ideally the template metaprogramming approach would be all that's needed, but it fails to work because I don't yet understand how the context should be specialized.
|
@nathanwbrei You might enjoy the sfinae question here too. |
DraTeots
approved these changes
Jan 6, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
While fmt-8.1.1 seems to fall back to ostream operators for types without a formatter specialization, this does not seem to be thr case for fmt-9.1.0. This adds explicit ostream_formatters for the necessary types.
Ideally the template metaprogramming approach would be all that's needed, but it fails to work because I don't yet understand how the context should be specialized.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
No.
Does this PR change default behavior?
No