Re: Problems with std::numeric_limits

[Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>]

Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
> > FWIW, if the standard says that numeric_limits<cv-qualified T>
> > is different than numeric_limits<T> I would consider it a defect
> > in the standard
>
>
> You saw my first reply, I tried to articulate in detail why, in fact,
> I'm strongly convinced that the standard *forbids* specializations for
> anything different from the cv-unqualified fundamental type. You also
> read that from a general, philosophical, stand-point, I agree with you
> and Roberto, seems rather obvious that a const int can assume the very
> same values of an int! Therefore, if you agree with my reading of the
> standard, well, we indeed have a defect! ;)

Yes, I agree. I think the best course of action is for us to bring
it on the reflector and, assuming no one comes up with a good reason
why it shouldn't be that we, open an issue.

Martin