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]

Re: PR 4051

To: Jason Merrill <jason_merrill at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: PR 4051
From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:42:42 -0400
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010817223319.A16086@mediaone.net> <or1ym4fjyr.fsf@feijoada.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20010822171718.A29585@disaster.jaj.com> <m3u1yzwvx0.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:51:23PM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> writes:
> > But yeah, simply surrounding the op<< in the example code with 'namespace std
> > {' and '}' allows the code to compile cleanly, even though the function isn't
> > a template specialization (and thus has no business being in std).  Weird.
> 
> It is a specialization of sorts...

Let me ask this, then:  /should/ the code given in the PR work?  I find
it very counter-intuitive to treat the op<< like a specialization.


Phil

-- 
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
                                     - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC

References:
- PR 4051
  - From: Craig Rodrigues
- Re: PR 4051
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: PR 4051
  - From: Phil Edwards
- Re: PR 4051
  - From: Jason Merrill

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