Re: libstdc++ not conforming with --enable-concepts-check?

[Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>]

On Sep 23, 2004, at 3:05 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> > Yes, I'll play with that idea (starting with deque, just because
> > it's where I noticed it) and report how I get on.
> > (I haven't solved the linker errors I was getting the other day yet,
> > have bootstrapped again but not tested - had to watch Empire Strikes
> > Back last night :)
> >
> > more data soon...
> I have some, already (sorry couldn't resist!): as far as deque is 
> concerned, I think we should just /remove/ those overloads! The point 
> is that they are /not/ buying us anything in this specific case! (*) 
> Do you agree?

Yes.  I put them in a long time ago, before we had the language rule 
saying that default arguments were instantiated separately from the 
function.  (i.e. if you supply both arguments then the default isn't 
instantiated)  At the time this was the only way to make sure that you 
could have containers of elements that didn't have default 
constructors.  It was important at the time, but it's now irrelevant.

			--Matt