Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>]

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/3759; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
To: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com>
Cc: <ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org>, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@codesourcery.com>,
   <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>, <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names
Date: 24 Jul 2001 19:12:09 +0200

 "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com> writes:
 
 | There are open issues related to the problem I illustrated, but there's
 | agreement in the LWG that an implementation has no right to exhibit the
 | behavior I illustrated. 
 
 The problem you reported is specifically issue #225 which is still
 open.  I'm not saying your problem is a non-issue.  The problem,
 if there is one, is in the Standard.
 
 I do not agree with the description that we are violating 14.6.4.
 Such a "violation" is a result of a possible inconsistency in the
 Standard not a V3 internal inconsistency. 
 
 For latter reference, I'll cite the notes from Tokyo and Toronto
 meetings:
 
 [Tokyo: The LWG agrees that this is a defect in the standard, but is as
 yet unsure if the proposed resolution is the best solution.
 Furthermore, the LWG believes that the same problem of unqualified
 library names applies to wording in the standard itself, and has
 opened issue 229 accordingly. Any resolution of issue 225 should be
 coordinated with the resolution of issue 229.] 
 
 [Toronto: The LWG is not sure if this is a defect in the
 standard. Most LWG members believe that an implementation of
 std::unique like the one quoted in this issue is
 already illegal, since, under certain circumstances, its semantics are
 not those specified in the standard. The standard's description of
 unique does not say that overloading
 adjacent_find should have any effect.]
 
 -- Gaby