Re: libstdc++ not conforming with --enable-concepts-check?

[Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:05:12PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Hi Paolo,

> >more data soon...
> > 
> >
> I have some, already (sorry couldn't resist!): as far as deque is 
> concerned, I think we should just /remove/ those overloads! The point is 
> that they are /not/ buying us anything in this specific case! (*) Do you 
> agree?
> 
> I'm attaching a draft for deque, already tested...
> 
> Paolo.
> 
> (*) Indeed, sometimes (istream:ignore, f.i.) the possibility to 
> implement overloads actually enables improvements/simplifications of the 
> algorithms.

I'd wondered exactly what the reason for splitting them was, whether it
enabled the optimiser to do a better job or something. If it is only to
allow different algorithms to be used then I agree that in this case
there's no reason to add overloads, and a good reason not to.

jon


-- 
"Dope will get you through times of no money better than
 money will get you through times of no dope."
	- Freewheelin' Franklin, Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers