This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names


"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com> writes:

| There are open issues related to the problem I illustrated, but there's
| agreement in the LWG that an implementation has no right to exhibit the
| behavior I illustrated. 

The problem you reported is specifically issue #225 which is still
open.  I'm not saying your problem is a non-issue.  The problem,
if there is one, is in the Standard.

I do not agree with the description that we are violating 14.6.4.
Such a "violation" is a result of a possible inconsistency in the
Standard not a V3 internal inconsistency. 

For latter reference, I'll cite the notes from Tokyo and Toronto
meetings:

[Tokyo: The LWG agrees that this is a defect in the standard, but is as
yet unsure if the proposed resolution is the best solution.
Furthermore, the LWG believes that the same problem of unqualified
library names applies to wording in the standard itself, and has
opened issue 229 accordingly. Any resolution of issue 225 should be
coordinated with the resolution of issue 229.] 

[Toronto: The LWG is not sure if this is a defect in the
standard. Most LWG members believe that an implementation of
std::unique like the one quoted in this issue is
already illegal, since, under certain circumstances, its semantics are
not those specified in the standard. The standard's description of
unique does not say that overloading
adjacent_find should have any effect.]

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]