Re: Library C++ conformance question

[Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>]

Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I agree with your reading that the facets should ignore
> > the initial value of the iostate argument.
>
>
> Notice, however, that the referred text is about *get*, not about 
> get_time, get_date, and so on... Given the current sorry state of the 
> time facets specifications, this is only a minor inconsistency however ;)

Heh! By that interpretation the do_get() virtual functions
could do whatever they pleased with the state. I agree that
the wording is poor. Let me add it to the growing list of
issues I'm planning to send to Howard before the deadline
(unless you'd like to do it :)

Martin