[Bug libstdc++/15910] can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>)

[adah at netstd dot com]

------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com  2005-08-12 03:00 -------
(In reply to comment #84)
> Subject: Re:  can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, 
std::vector<T>)
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 10:32 PM, adah at netstd dot com wrote:
> > What I have not is that a PRoblem resulting from an deficiency of the 
> > C++
> > Standard is not considered a PRoblem.  It is clear that many C++ gurus 
> > do think
> > it a deficiency of the C++ Standard.
> Yes but you said using GCC bugzilla for deficiencies in C++.  GCC 
> bugzilla is not
> for that but only for GCC deficiencies so if the C++ standard says one 
> thing and
> you disagree with it, GCC bugzilla is not correct place to raise the 
> issue, even
> if many "C++ gurus" says this is a bug in GCC, you should get a 
> clarification
> from the standards committee which is not hard as DR reports are open 
> to anyone
> and not limited to committee members.
> -- Pinski

Arguing for the principles is difficult, if the one point we disagree is not 
explicitly listed officially somewhere (I am not convinced unless I see a 
statement like that GCC wants to be a bug-for-bug translator of the C++ 
Standard).  So I am not to argue with you. :-)

Please understand that my reason to post comments here was not because this was 
a C++ problem, but because I hoped the behaviour of GCC in this aspect could be 
better.  And I want to say that IMO it was a little premature to mark this bug 
as `REJECT-INVALID': `SUSPEND' is much better (I admit the state change 
irritated me a little, and my bitter quarrel with Gaby somehow began there).  
When the WG21 has decided this *is* a bug of the Standard, you will then reopen 
the bug again?  I simply do not think it a good idea to stick to every exact 
word of the Standard (it will change after all).  Admittedly it is only my 
personal opinion.

Even if you cannot agree with a word of all stated above, I suppose I am still 
allowed to request to improve the error message so that a user can recognize 
*WHAT* is going wrong and *WHERE*.

Yongwei


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910