This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: rel_ops (was Re: GCC 3.1 Release)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com (Gabriel Dos Reis), mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell), phil at jaj dot com (Phil Edwards), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org), bkoz at redhat dot com (bkoz at redhat dot com), libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org (libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org)
- Date: 16 Apr 2002 19:46:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: rel_ops (was Re: GCC 3.1 Release)
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200204161647.JAA18056@atrus.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> writes:
| Gaby:
| > | > I'll apply the same thing to mainline. Branch requires your approval
| > | > if I understand correctly.
|
| Mark:
| > | Do it. And thank you. And please close the high-priority PR. :-)
|
| Gaby:
| > Done. Thanks.
|
| I see that Gaby couldn't resist throwing in an editorial comment attacking
| std::rel_ops.
Joe, I didn't "attack" std::rel_ops. I simply stated a *fact*: the
operators in std::rel_ops are greedy and tend to take precedence over
operators that would have been selected, were stg::rel_ops absent.
| After the attack, Gaby asks "Can someone remind me what
| generic programming is about?"
|
| I will remind him that the ability to define just operator== and operator<
| and automatically get correct definitions of the other four, every time,
| (at least for a large number of cases) is a powerful instance of of
| generic programming, and this is exactly what generic programming is
| about.
I appreciate your answer, but it doesn't answer my concern and as such
doesn't enlighten the point std::rel_ops is serving generic programming
here: It causes more trouble than it solves.
[...]
| I'm not going to ask that the comment be stricken, but I'm not crazy
| about the idea of a lot of editorial commentary in the headers.
I think you're taking this issue more personally than it should.
Qualifying my comments as being attacking std::rel_ops is far too
extreme.
Am I mistaken to think that the std::rel_ops issue is more about
Joe/Gaby than about anything else?
-- Gaby