------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-10 02:40 ------- Since I do not think I can find appropriate words to respond to Gaby without inflaming the discussion, I think I had better suppress my will to argue with him it for the moment. Not that I want to ignore his messages. On the contrary, I have read every word. Sorry that I had ignored some of his advice before. Some was useful. Regret that I am not an expert in the C++ Standard, as most C++ users are not.
(In reply to comment #66) > Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>) > > 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. > Even documentioning what the standard say in the non bug section of bug reporting > web page, does not help people to read the docs. There is no way really to fix > this. Look at the sequence point docs in bug reporting web page and then look at > all the dupicate bugs. > -- Pinski Now to your point. Please notice that my current stance is not that GCC should fix this `bug'. I have stated it days ago. But the user's failure is really UNEXPECTED, and this is a PROBLEM. To avoid this problem, a better diagnostic message should be emitted. Just try compiling the OP's program to see my point. My bug report was a duplicate too, but I did do a search on `Koenig'. I did not search on `distance' because I did not think it was the point. (In reply to comment #67) > I think we should all recuse ourselves from this discussion, since we just > keep iterating our same old positions: > > Yongwei believes that this is a defect in the standard and that gcc should > not follow the standard in this respect. > > Gaby and I believe that gcc should follow the standard, and probably both > believe that the standard does not have a defect in this respect. We believe I cannot help wondering why (though this might be better discussed on comp.std.c++: I do hope you can discuss there). IMHO, the current bahaviour is violating the rationale of the std namespace. > that changing the standard would require a massive change in the language, > since it would either a) require the introduction of concepts (so that > std::distance can only be called with arguments that match the concept > of an iterator; same for all other similar functions), or b) abandoning > argument dependent (Koenig) name lookup. Neither sounds like an appealing If this bug should ever be fixed, I would prefer this approach: c) Failure to instantiate a template function should automatically remove it from the candidates of overload resolution. > idea. We believe that users can work around this perceived problem by > simply calling > ::distance (arg1, arg2) > to get to their own implementation, not the one in std:: Passing this information to the user is difficult, unless GCC emits a diagnostic message to help users do so, as GCC is currently doing on the missing of `typename'. > Since we can't seem to find an agreement, let's just leave it at that. > > W. I am not an unreasonable person. I just want to see a reasonable ending. Yongwei -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910
