This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [patch] Remove invalid test on non-const empty strings
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:41:51AM +0000, Chris Jefferson wrote:
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >chris jefferson wrote:
> >>Good point!
> >>Perhaps then a better idea would be to wrap tests like this in a
> >>#ifndef _GLIBCXX_DEBUG / #endif pair?
> >Better, but I think we should really understand (I'm speaking for
> >myself, first and foremost ;) why the debug mode is so strict about
> >that behavior...
> Hmm.. I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean why does it pass in the
> const case, and not in the non-const case, I'd guess thats because that
> exactly how it is written in debug/string :) (there is a different
> implementation of  for const and non-const, with the different
> I suppose what this really depends on is what the aim of the debugging
> library is. I had at first assumed that it's purpose was exactly what it
> says, a libstdc++ debugging library. However in this case it looks more
> like it is aiming to be a super-pedantic library.
Yes, that's certainly how I regard it - like run-time concept checks
that identify anywhere you invoke non-standard behaviour, e.g.
> One option would be to
> introduce an extra "pedantic" mode..
There's already __GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC
Maybe the non-pedantic debug mode should be changed to allow this v3
extension, but refuse it in pedantic mode.
> however I'm not convinced how
> useful that would be in the long run, as I suspect properly implementing
> such a thing would require a lot of extra code, so perhaps we should
> just nuke this extra test in string?
"There is no governor anywhere. You are all absolutely free."
- Cagliostro the Great
"The Schroedinger's Cat Trilogy" RAW