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

["David Abrahams" <david dot abrahams at rcn dot com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@codesourcery.com>
To: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com>
Cc: <ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org>; "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@codesourcery.com>;
<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>; <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>; <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:12 PM
Subject: 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 disagree. I agree with the LWG consensus from Toronto note you quoted
below - that there's no standard defect. The problem IMO is in libstd-c++.

> 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.

I agree that 14.6.4 is not a relevant section. To violate anything in
section 14 there would have to be a core compiler bug. I don't believe there
is one. I think you have a library bug.

> 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
>