[Bug libstdc++/54248] New: Comment in standard library header talks about boost

[Bug libstdc++/54248] New: Comment in standard library header talks about boost

[zeratul976 at hotmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54248

             Bug #: 54248
           Summary: Comment in standard library header talks about boost
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: zeratul976@hotmail.com


This is rather trivial thing, but bits/concept_check.h contains the following
comment near the bottom:


// Note that the obvious and elegant approach of
//
//#define glibcxx_function_requires(C) boost::function_requires< boost::C >()
//
// won't work due to concept templates with more than one parameter, e.g.,
// BinaryPredicateConcept.  The preprocessor tries to split things up on
// the commas in the template argument list.  We can't use an inner pair of
// parenthesis to hide the commas, because "boost::(Temp<Foo,Bar>)" isn't
// a valid instantiation pattern.  Thus, we steal a feature from C99.


Should this comment really be talking about boost?

[Bug libstdc++/54248] Comment in standard library header talks about boost

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54248

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-08-14
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Severity|normal                      |trivial

[Bug libstdc++/54248] Comment in standard library header talks about boost

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54248

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 08:01:44 UTC ---
> Should this comment really be talking about boost?

N.B. I don't see any actual harm in talking about Boost, seeing as the concept
checking code came straight from there.  We don't want to remove other
references such as the credit in <bits/boost_concept_check.h>

// GCC Note:  based on version 1.12.0 of the Boost library.

So I'm in two minds whether to "fix" the other comment.

[Bug libstdc++/54248] Comment in standard library header talks about boost

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54248

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-25 18:51:58 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Aug 25 18:51:53 2012
New Revision: 190668

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190668
Log:
    PR libstdc++/54248
    * include/bits/concept_check.h: Replace references to boost
    namespace.

Modified:
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/concept_check.h