------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-27 07:20
-------
(In reply to comment #4)
> So, IMHO, this isn't giving up consistency; it's just reflecting inherent
> inconsistency through an inconsistent interface.
I see your point. I don't know. This is really matter for the LWG: are you
willing to send a message to the reflector and/or get in touch with Matt
and Howard privately? In my opinion, there are two different options, either
implement in TR1 the tentative resolution of issue 6.19 (strictly speaking
would be consistent with the rest of the library, even the details of the
current wording for erase - I think you agree - even if it=erase(it) would
not make sense, but where it's spelled out that *must*, necessarily?), or
completely undo it with the sensible rationale that you provided. Just let
me know how you want to proceed...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24061
