Library C++ conformance question

[Paolo Carlini]

Martin Sebor wrote:

>> Notice, however, that the referred text is about *get*, not about 
>> get_time, get_date, and so on... Given the current sorry state of the 
>> time facets specifications, this is only a minor inconsistency 
>> however ;)
>
> Heh! By that interpretation the do_get() virtual functions
> could do whatever they pleased with the state.

I will not follow you in the slippery slope rethoric strategy. One think 
is a facility and the accompanying virtual (and I think the text should 
be more explicit even in that case), another when a differently named 
facility is not mentioned at all.

> I agree that the wording is poor. Let me add it to the growing list of
> issues I'm planning to send to Howard before the deadline

Ok, thanks a lot for that!

Paolo.