Re: [RFC/Patch] libstdc++/14320 aka class type streamoff doesn't work :(

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| >If you carefully read my previous messages, you'll notice that it is
| >the standard that should be fixed.
| >
| Again this old story? I'm not a member of the standard committee, I'm an
| implementor, and here, since we are on the libstdc++ list you are also,
| therefore, discussing that is a waste of time. You are right, I can only
| agree with you and learn from you about those topics (I'm 100% serious,
| for sure you understand what I mean), but we should preferably discuss
| this offline, for the list is a pure waste of time. We are here for
| implementing the standard to our best. Personally, I'm proud and honored
| to be paid to do that, since I like my (implementor) work.

I don't understand what you're talking about.  You said:

 # But don't try to convince me that we can fulfil the detailed
 # requirements of the current standard while keeping class streamoff.

I was telling you that I already said that we should fix the standard text
instead.  See my very first message

   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-02/msg00446.html


| Each and every day we have the standard, we have PRs correct according to
| it, and "prima facie" we have to thank submitters, fix our implementation,
| and that's it. Or, we may decide to not fix a bug since we strongly believe
| that the standard is incorrect, and in that case that is "WONTFIX", which
| we (you) should respectfully explain to submitter (possibly citing a DR,
| or submitting one ASAP) and, important, in the release notes. "Tertium non
| datur".

You asked and I also told you I don't care whether you closed it as
"PARTIALLY WONTFIX" or "WONTFIX".  I also told you that you could
provide the "obivous" missing functions (multiplication, insertion,
extraction). 

-- Gaby