------- Comment #4 from jimrees at itasoftware dot com 2006-09-11 22:23 ------- Sure, the issue sounds interesting, and the committee's resolution statement is definitely lame. Bug issue 309 seems to be more about what is _specified_ about sentry::sentry()'s behavior, and I don't necessarily care about that w.r.t. this bug.
I care about 27.6.1.1 P4 (which makes no mention of sentry), and with the GNU C++ implementation. The fact that operator>>() happens to invoke sentry's constructor does not make an excuse. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29026
