C++ PATCH: Fix PR 13275

[Zack Weinberg]

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:

> "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
> | 
> | > It implements something that is not offsetof, it is a real extension
> | > -- let's call a cat a cat.  I'm not sure it is advisable to set the
> | > precedent where this extension, which does  not implement offsetof,
> | > is threated this way.
> | 
> | Would you like to submit a patch which does it the way you want it
> | done?
>
> There are at least three issues here:
>
>   (1) Do we want to hide that extension under the name of implementing
>       offset -- where actually  we do not?

*shrug*

>   (2) It was objected, that one would be doing ugly things with the
>       grammar, but no preceision was given.  I would appreciate to
>       have some outline of such things (so that they may be avoided)

can't comment

>   (3) Do we want to that precendent?  I may be wrong but my impression
>       is that your question is somewhat rhetorical, and I would love
>       to be wrong there.

not sure what you mean.  I'm trying to make a meta-point: given that
we are in stage 3, and given that we have a real bug which the patch
does fix, objections of the form "It should be done in a totally
different way" would carry significantly more weight if they came
attached to alternative patches.  Particularly if the totally
different way might be too invasive.

zw