This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/15910] can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>)
- From: "adah at netstd dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 9 Aug 2005 13:36:38 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/15910] can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>)
- References: <20040610143911.15910.king.benjamin@mh-hannover.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-09 13:36 -------
(In reply to comment #58)
> It serves its users by providing a reliable translator for the language
> defined by the standard. Think about the portability implications of
> compilers that willy-nilly implement some parts of the standard but not
> all, based on what they perceive as their users' best interest.
Generally you are right. However, people that encounter this bug most
probably know little (if any) of the C++ Standard (and thus care little about
conformance to the Standard), and people know well about the Standard most
probably won't encounter this bug at all. So I do not think this point really
holds.
> If you go beyond toy projects, then best user interest will place a formally
> and well-defined, portable language over a language that always does what
> the user intuitively wants it to do.
This is reasonable. That was why I thought it was not necessary to `fix' this
bug after some discussions. I just thought it was still a bug, and some
measures need to be taken to warn the user about this problem. It might be of
low priority, but simply marking it as `INVALID' just covers this problem.
More people might discover this bug again and report it again, though they
might not be as _____ (fill in adjectives that you like) as I am.
>
> W.
Yongwei
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910