[Bug c++/57239] cannot handle inner/nested class templates with non-type parameter packs that were declared in the outer/containing class

["scottbaldwin at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239

--- Comment #12 from etherice <scottbaldwin at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to etherice from comment #10)
> > Isn't it defeating the purpose of having a 'status' field if it's not being
> > used?
> 
> What makes you think it isn't used?

His comment that "quite often bugs are fixed when still unconfirmed". In those
cases, when it isn't used, the submission isn't even acknowledged until the bug
is fixed.

> Paolo is saying that the difference
> between UNCONFIRMED and NEW is often irrelevant for the submitter's
> purposes, that doesn't mean the entire field isn't used. The ASSIGNED and
> RESOLVED values are obviously not the same as UNCONFIRMED/NEW.

The point was more about setting an initial status -- something -- to
acknowledge the submission was reviewed.

> But there is no "dev team" so there's no radar for it to meaningfully be on.

I meant the group of developers maintaining gcc.

> That's not how GCC works. Confirming the bug means at least one person
> agrees it's a real bug, and noone else has disagreed strongly enough to say
> it's INVALID, it doesn't mean it's on anyone's TODO list or a fix is in
> progress.

But you agree that it says *something*, which is better than nothing. It's some
kind of acknowledgement to the submitter that the report was reviewed by
someone and not just lost in the shuffle.

Paulo's observation that "often bug submitters attach way too much importance
to the status change". I can't speak for everyone, but it sounds like bug
submitters eventually become curious about the status of their submissions,
after enough time passes.