From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1540 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2003 16:46:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1523 invoked by uid 71); 23 Jan 2003 16:46:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030123164600.1522.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/7016 Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01380.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/7016; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/7016 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:43:17 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:36:46 +0100 From: Jan Beulich To: neil@daikokuya.co.uk, bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/7016: missing definitions for ?= Hmm, of course you could deprecate this. In any case, I came to note this because such code compiled file with 2.95.3. Whether or not the assignment versions make a lot of sense is another question - I consider them as usefule (or useless) as the other assignment operators which I'm sure you won't put under question. Jan