From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21584 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2012 11:45:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 21381 invoked by uid 48); 10 Oct 2012 11:45:11 -0000 From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:45:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00968.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10 11:45:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > The patch is already in, of course. In hindsight, I think we shouldn't have > bundled the SFINAE bits with addressing LWG 2141, which, I realize now, is > still in flux. At least we should have discussed that. > > For now, I would recommend reverting the changes related to LWG 2141. Just in case: I didn't post my remark to get the patch reverted, I think it is ok to leave it in, I guess an email to LWG would have been more appropriate. In any case, we are likely to know more after the meeting (in just a few days now IIRC).