17 Jun
2006
17 Jun
'06
5:37 p.m.
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> 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