This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libstdc++/9626: g++ accepts vector<vector<int> > v(2, 4);
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- To: paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 8 Feb 2003 15:36:00 -0000
- Subject: Re: libstdc++/9626: g++ accepts vector<vector<int> > v(2, 4);
- Reply-to: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/9626; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it>
To: Cc: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>,
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++/9626: g++ accepts vector<vector<int> > v(2, 4);
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:28:16 +0100
Well... really interesting.
I found a *very* interesting interchange on C++-moderated back in
May-2002, between John Potter, Carlos Moreno and others:
http://groups.google.it/groups?hl=it&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3cf85a1f.17498620%40news.earthlink.net&rnum=40&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dvector%253Cvector%2Bgroup:comp.*%26start%3D30%26hl%3Dit%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3cf85a1f.17498620%2540news.earthlink.net%26rnum%3D40
It ends with them _agreeing_ that the syntax is _legal_ and John
replying to another guy:
> > When people ask me what the keyword 'explicit' is for I usually take a
> > vector in particular as an example: > Speaking of std::vector it has
> > explicit vector(size_type n, const T& value = T(),
> > const Allocator& = Allocator()); > so I'd expect that >
> vector< vector<int> > values (20, 30);
> > must NOT compile on a conformant implementation.
>
> However, 20 is not a size_type and it does not match that constructor.
> It matches
>
> template <class InputIterator>
> vector (InputIterator first, InputIterator last,
> Allocator const& = Allocator());
>
> Since int can't be an iterator, the implementation is required to make
> it act the same as
>
> vector(static_cast<size_type>(first), static_cast<value_type>(last));
>
> The second static_cast takes care of your concerns about explicit.
>
> See 23.1.1/9
>
> John
At this point I think we can safely close the report!
Paolo.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9626