Re: libsupc++ nit picks

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 12:34:16AM +0000, Nathan Myers wrote:
> What is clear is that implementations are allowed to use std:: names
> within.  It's not clear whether they are allowed *not* to, and while 
> it's well enough established that users are allowed to specialize
> (e.g.) std::swap for their types, it's not established that an
> implementation is required to use their specialization.  
> 
> It's also not quite clear enough that users are allowed to overload 
> (e.g.) std::swap<> for their types, although that's the only way to 
> get the effect of partial specialization for function templates.  It
> is clear that it was meant to it be allowed.

I agree all around.

> We do users a favor by providing the more predictable behavior.     
> The committee may eventually require it, or not, depending on how 
> squidgy it happens to be when the vote comes up.

Ooh, I just learnt a new word.  "Squidgy".  I like it.

Speaking of votes and committees:  you mentioned in a recent message that
the first TC had been voted on.  How and when is this information goign
to be provided to the public?


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams