This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: rel_ops (was Re: GCC 3.1 Release)


Hi,

On 16 Apr 2002, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> writes:
> | Gaby:
> | > | > I'll apply the same thing to mainline.  Branch requires your approval
> | > | > if I understand correctly.
> | 
> | Mark:
> | > | Do it.  And thank you.  And please close the high-priority PR. :-)
> | 
> | Gaby:
> | > Done.  Thanks.
> | 
> | I see that Gaby couldn't resist throwing in an editorial comment attacking
> | std::rel_ops.
> 
> Joe, I didn't "attack" std::rel_ops.  I simply stated a *fact*: the
> operators in std::rel_ops are greedy and tend to take precedence over
> operators that would have been selected, were stg::rel_ops absent.

Sorry, that beats me.  When you overload or specialize any operator> then
a templated operator> that would match the same signature should not take
precedence, be it in some namespace or not.  And it doesn't seem to happen
in GCC as far as I can see and it would be a freaking bug if it happened
as far as I can tell.  Gaby, I have repeatedly asked you to explain the
problems you keep mentioning but you never answered.  Could someone please
enlighten me and provide a scenario where the operators in std::rel_ops
take precendence over operators that would have been selected otherwise.

Maybe just blind
              -richy.
-- 
Richard B. Kreckel
<Richard.Kreckel@Uni-Mainz.DE>
<http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~kreckel/>



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]