This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/41759] [C++0x] <random> static_assert phrasing should be positive
- From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Oct 2009 02:45:46 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/41759] [C++0x] <random> static_assert phrasing should be positive
- References: <bug-41759-365@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-10-20 02:45 -------
In fact, I have only *extended* the existing static_asserts to cover the type
too, not just the bounds, thus avoiding the legacy simulated concept checks.
In general, I followed the existing practice about negative vs positive.
I think the real confusion is that in general we want to talk about *arguments*
not *parameters*, therefore we want to say "argument substituting _UIntType not
an unsigned integral type", and "template argument substituting __m out of
bounds". I'm in favor of that change.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759