------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-07 02:07 -------
Well, if you absolutely want to know:
That he tried to put a constant element into a container indeed is
questionable. That was the question in the other PR. However, allocators
can be used for more than just in allocators, and this is what we are
talking about here.
The fact that there is an issue with the allocators only referred to the
fact that the way the standard is written it doesn't allow the allocator
to compile with constant arguments. I never questioned that: a strict
reading indeed needs to determine that the PR is invalid.
However, this wasn't the question I asked. My question was whether this
was intentional, or whether it merits a DR. The answer to this question
clearly can't be found in the standard, and neither in the other PR, it
requires the interpretative skills of people who know the _intent_ of the
standard -- something neither you nor I have, which is why I asked for
second opinions.
If the people who may answer this question determine that the standard is
the way it is by intent, then that's the time to close the PR. Have some
patience, please.
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17866
