Re: c++/7016

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/7016; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/7016
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:59:49 -0600 (CST)

 > Hmm, of course you could deprecate this. In any case, I came to note
 > this because such code compiled file with 2.95.3.
 
 Which code? The code in the example passed the 2.95 compiler for me, but 
 created errors in the assembler since the operator was mangled as
 "<invalid operator>" (sic).
 
 > 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.
 
 Sure not. I suggested deprecating <? and >?, and if they are, then the 
 assignment versions should be as well.
 
 However, I see that I misunderstood their meaning. I was reading them as 
 <=? instead of <?=, i.e. "give the element that is smaller or equal to the 
 other one", instead of "assign the smaller one of the two". The former 
 doesn't make sense, since it is equivalent to the <? operator. Sorry, my 
 bad.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/