--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-17
11:42 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Over my dead body. :-)
Oh, come on. It isn't that bad an idea to localize substitution failures,
isn't it:-)
-- Gaby
Sven
--
--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-16
10:22 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Is there a way to distinguish between unions (which are not usable as base
classes) and classes? If not, the standard is incomplete.
You should know that 10 years ago
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-16 19:19 ---
Subject: Re: Possible bug
sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| (In reply to comment #7)
| Is there a way to distinguish between unions (which are not usable as
base
|
--- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
12:37 ---
The code is invalid. In the section 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] paragraph 2 of the
standard
does not include creating a class with invalid base class. Examples of valid
SNINF cases:
- Attempting to create an
--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-15
14:08 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
The code is invalid. In the section 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] paragraph 2 of the
standard
does not include creating a class with invalid base class.
If there is no other way
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-15
14:12 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
If there is no other way to distinguish reliable between unions and classes,
add it into the extension list. Unions should be avoided in object oriented
design, anyway, but it
--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-15
14:46 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Extensions are bad. Even just bugs in the compiler is a bad thing beause
people would think the bug
was an extension and start depending on it and then when the bug was
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-15 15:03
---
Is there a way to distinguish between unions (which are not usable as base
classes) and classes? If not, the standard is incomplete.
You should know that 10 years ago people didn't even imagine the kind of
--- Additional Comments From sven at clio dot in-berlin dot de 2005-05-12
09:48 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think you used SFINF correctly.
The substitution of the formal parameter with the actual argument fails, thus
it is a form of substitution failure. I do not know,
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-11
11:10 ---
I don't think you used SFINF correctly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21510
10 matches
Mail list logo
