This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFC] libstdc++/5734
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, m dot duflot at ulg dot ac dot be
- Date: 20 Feb 2002 17:04:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] libstdc++/5734
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <3C73905D.512F6FEE@unitus.it> <20020220105146.A3727@disaster.basement.lan>
Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:02:37PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
| >
| > the first part of this PR is about the extension *member* of the vector class:
| >
| > vector::push_back()
| >
| > which adds a default constructed element at the end.
| >
| > What should we do?
|
| I'm trying to figure out what the PR submitter's complaint is.
Actually, we discussed the issue on the French speaking newsgroup
news:fr.comp.lang.c++ where he raised the issue: We're accepting
extensions without providing anyway to tell the compiler to warn
him -- in fact, he learnt the existence of that extension the hard
way :-(
Then I rhetorically said "I don't even remember we documented that
extension :-)" -- I was hidding myself behing my finger ;-)
| - If the bug is "this extension is undocumented," then we simply document it
| like everything else, mark it as an extension, and we're done.
No, that is not what he wants.
| - If the bug is "we meant to call push_back(foo), but we accidentally called
| push_back(), and the compiler should have errored, and it didn't, and it's
| a library bug,"
Yes, that is what he intended.
| then I tend to view that as Not Our Problem. :-)
On the contrary, it -is- Our Problem. True, we didn't put it there,
but it is found in our library; it is definitely our problem.
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com