------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-09 13:36 ------- (In reply to comment #58) > It serves its users by providing a reliable translator for the language > defined by the standard. Think about the portability implications of > compilers that willy-nilly implement some parts of the standard but not > all, based on what they perceive as their users' best interest.
Generally you are right. However, people that encounter this bug most probably know little (if any) of the C++ Standard (and thus care little about conformance to the Standard), and people know well about the Standard most probably won't encounter this bug at all. So I do not think this point really holds. > If you go beyond toy projects, then best user interest will place a formally > and well-defined, portable language over a language that always does what > the user intuitively wants it to do. This is reasonable. That was why I thought it was not necessary to `fix' this bug after some discussions. I just thought it was still a bug, and some measures need to be taken to warn the user about this problem. It might be of low priority, but simply marking it as `INVALID' just covers this problem. More people might discover this bug again and report it again, though they might not be as _____ (fill in adjectives that you like) as I am. > > W. Yongwei -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910
