[Bug libstdc++/15276] Erroneous Comparisons of Negative Characters

["gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-05-05 14:55 -------
Subject: Re:  Erroneous Comparisons of Negative Characters

"pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| > Secondly, assuming a std::string was supposed to be a typedef-name for
| > a C-string, we would not have had a c_str() in the first place.
| 
| Honestly, I don't understand why you are insisting on this 'typedef-name'
| thing, that nobody has mentioned before. Are you referring to a previous 
| discussion?

I'm referring to the current discussion and the way you seem to
perceive std::string, given your questioning.

| > Sure, it is hard to second guess what the committee intended -- a
| > truism -- specifically when one does not want to believe what it wrote.
| 
| However, apparently, all the major implementations in the world are so
| "perverse" to second guess like this... Do you really consider wise for v3
| to diverge on this issue?

Apparently, you want V3 to be "perverse".

I don't want V3 just to follow bindly.  I'm happy in establishing V3's
interpretation is correct, not that it is behaving like another
implementation that you think is "perverse".  If you can come up with
a rational sequence of inferences that makes V3 match the standard, I
would be most happy to explain it to the original submitter. But,
please, don't come and tell me that V3 is correct with respect to the
standard specification because someone else is doing the same.  

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15276