From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24031-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4894 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2002 19:46:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4879 invoked by uid 71); 5 Nov 2002 19:46:01 -0000
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20021105194601.4863.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Subject: Re: c++/8448: Regression from gcc 2.96 concerning nested namespaces
Reply-To: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/8448; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/8448: Regression from gcc 2.96 concerning nested namespaces
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:43:19 -0700

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8448
 
 
  > I guess the most proper way to get a change is to lobby the C++
  > standards committee to review the matter and come up with a solution
  > that may then be implemented by all compiler vendors.
 
 This issue is already being discussed. See
 
      http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#226
 
 Regards
 Martin