From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-04 15:06:50
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> > There's the rub, though. I never used "a name from the standard
> > library" for which I did not "include a standard library header
> > documented as providing that name". The issue actually stems from
> > calling the constructors with const char* parameters which need to be
> > implicitly cast to the const std::string& type. So I guess you could
> > turn this around and claim that the standard has a defect in design,
> > but I don't care to go that far. I honestly think this is a QoI
> > issue with STLPort.
> Arguably. Is it better to break loudly when the user does something
> nonportable, or to understand their intention and "just work"?
Perhaps the LWG should consider adding constructors that take a char const
Of course until that happens Bill's code would remain nonportable, QoI or
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk