From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 13:37:42
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 12:14 2006-06-15, John Maddock wrote:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>> > a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe
>> > s/carefully/seriously/?
>> > b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when
>> > the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case.
>>I missed (well forgot actually) that the compiler was non-comforming
> "in that mode"
> in which "mode" ??
In the mode where std::vector<T>::iterator is "checked." The type
has the right syntax and mostly the right semantics but doesn't meet
the complexity requirements to be a conforming iterator.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com