------- Comment #6 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2008-10-13 17:01 -------
Then I'm hopelessly confused. It's clear that my report and the example in
DR109 are the same problem. You say: "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." That makes sense - with the addition of the overload my
example will compile too. So it appears that gcc (at least 4.3.1) does *not*
implement DR109.
You then say, in essence, "So what, it's deprecated in C++0X and there's a
better solution therein, get over it". Would that I could! Unfortunately, out
here in the real world some of us have legal, business, and practical mandates
that *require* us to use only *officially issued* language standards, and
explicitly prohibit us from using extensions, next-release features and so on.
On pain of being fired, if not worse.
I realize that keeping up with soon-to-be-obviated DRs is not the most
professionally satisfying activity. But the fix here seems so well known and
trivial that I don't understand a reluctance to put it in. However, gcc is a
volunteer project and if nobody will put it in then nobody will put it in. May
I suggest that the proper resolution of my report is "VERIFIED - WONT FIX"?
Or perhaps I've again misunderstood?
--
igodard at pacbell dot net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37811
