Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton

[Hans Åberg]

> On 19 May 2019, at 12:58, Frank Heckenbach <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
>>> Le 19 mai 2019 à 11:02, Hans Åberg <address@hidden> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Also a spelling error: copiable.
>> 
>> I'm installing this.  Thanks a lot Hans!
>> 
>>    fix: use copiable, not copyable
> 
> Am I missing something? Seems like "copyable" is a valid alternative
> form:
> 
>  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copiable
> 
> and commonly used in C++:
> 
>  https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/is_trivially_copyable

It has varied historically, it seems [1]. I got it from NOAD/ODE only listing 
‘copiable’, whereas AmH lists both.

1. 
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=copiable%2Ccopyable&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Ccopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Ccopyable%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcopyable%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCopyable%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2Ccopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Ccopyable%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcopyable%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCopyable%3B%2Cc0