This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFC] libstdc++/9626 and std::vector constructors
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Cc: "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:50:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] libstdc++/9626 and std::vector constructors
- References: <3E44F940.10403@unitus.it> <3E44FFA5.3070609@unitus.it>
... it turns out that, for _very_ subtle reasons, submitter's
testcase is not illegal at all.
Therefore, I have closed the PR: see the final part of the audit
trail for details.
However, I'm still puzzled as regards why, in our implementation,
we have:
explicit
vector(const allocator_type& __a = allocator_type());
vector(size_type __n, const value_type& __value,
const allocator_type& __a = allocator_type());
explicit
vector(size_type __n);
instead of:
explicit
vector(const allocator_type& __a = allocator_type());
explicit
vector(size_type __n, const value_type& __value = value_type(),
const allocator_type& __a = allocator_type());
according to the letter of the standard.
Are they equivalent or not?
Thanks,
Paolo.