Char_traits (part 2+)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Jack Reeves" <jack_reeves@hispeed.ch> writes:

| > The consensus seems to be that failing to provide a definition for
| > char_traits<_CharT> is strictly conforming, although not all that
| > friendly to users.
| >
| I'm afraid that I don't see how providing a definition either without an
| implementation, or with one that generates a version that does not
| meet the requirements is any friendlier.

This is a very good argument *for* defining the primary template as
per the Standard requirement.  

If your disagree with the Standard requirements, I think a better
place is to fill a Defect Report.

| Any attempt by users, no matter how they go about it, is undefined behavior.

True, but "undefined behaviour" is also a freedom for us to choose to define
that behaviour by allowing users to do the thing the standard poses no
requirements on. 

[...]

| I can not really address it yet because I have not investigated it enough.
| My
| suggestion that the library implementation should ignore the
| char_traits::assign,

Since CharT is a POD, the copy-and-assignment operator can certainly
provide a general definition for char_traits<>assign.

-- Gaby