------- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-13 16:23 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Ah - I was looking at language DR109, not library DR109. However, the correct > DR says the committee approved the example reported here (and adds the fix) so > gcc appears to be in error to fail it.
That't *not* true. The example in DR 109 does *not* compile if the additional operator() are not added and does when the resolution of DR 109 is implemented. However, there is the curious remark: > "Howard believes there is a flaw in this resolution. See c++std-lib-9127. > We may need to reopen this issue." In any case, this is moot. As I tried to explain, nobody really cares these days about those bind1st and bind2nd binders, in the CD1 C++0x are already in an appendix, as deprecated features, with the exact resolution of issue DR 109 included, as we are doing. > Unfortunately Google turns up nothing for "c++std-lib-9127" except this > cryptic > message, and just "9127" and other variations aren't productive either. Can > you > tell me where to find it? It's a message to the ISO library reflector. Really, given the above, I would suggest not wasting further time... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37811
