------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-08-03 13:01 ------- Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>)
"giovannibajo at libero dot it" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-08-03 12:48 ------- | Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>) | | gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote: | | >> Is there *anything* in the standard saying that the code is actually | >> illegal? | >> This is a rejects-valid IMO. | | > Can you elaborate on why you believe this is a reject a valid? | | Because I think that picking up std::distance by Koenig lookup and having it | *abort compilation* instead of being reject as an invalid overload is just an | unintended side effect of the implementation. I'm more interested in chapter and verse, since you stated that this is a reject-valid. | If you want to push it, it might | be an unintended side-effect of the standard - fine, the standard is broken. Then, take it to the C++ standards committee. | But I won't never buy that the code is rightfully ill-formed as-is. It breaks It is fundamentally broken as per the current standard. If you think the standard is broken, then take it to the committee and fix the standard. [...] | Or maybe, we could have a way to use enable_if using as condition "does | iterator_traits<T> have a nested difference_type?". You could use iterator_traits, but again the code is fundamentally broken. Papering over the problem is the wrong thing to do. A broken code should explose as soon as possible. Otherwise, a QoI we don't do a good job at spotting broken or dubious or non-portable codes. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910
