Return-Path: 
 <stdcxx-dev-return-6313-apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 41255 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2007 00:40:46 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Nov 2007 00:40:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 10042 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2007 00:40:33 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 10027 invoked by uid 500); 30 Nov 2007 00:40:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stdcxx-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <stdcxx-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 10016 invoked by uid 99); 30 Nov 2007 00:40:33 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:33 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.roguewave.com) (208.30.140.160)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:40:14 +0000
Received: from nebula.bco.roguewave.com ([10.70.3.27])
	by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lAU0eGF5004234
	for <stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:40:16 GMT
Message-ID: <474F5BF0.1030606@roguewave.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:16 -0700
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] stdcxx release process, second draft
References: <472951EF.6070105@roguewave.com> <13719498.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <13849210.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <7BDB2168BEAEF14C98F1901FD2DE643801482FB0@epmsa009.minsk.epam.com>
 <474CF5A9.30208@roguewave.com> <474CFDB3.8070601@roguewave.com>
 <14032347.post@talk.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <14032347.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Travis Vitek wrote:
> 
> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> So here's a question: do we think STDCXX-336 doable for 4.2.1?
>> Also, what's your take on STDCXX-242 and STDCXX-343? I think there
>> might be others where it's not completely clear (at least to me)
>> what is forward compatible and what's not.
>>
> 
> STDCXX-343 is quite source incompatible. It is one of those weird cases that
> I can't imagine that a user would intentionally write, and even if they did
> they might not get the results that they want (undefined behavior).

You're right. Even if some members of std::auto_ptr<void> have
undefined behavior removing the body of the whole specialization
is a source incompatible change that needs to wait until at least
4.3, if not 5.0. The only reason why I think we might want to
even consider removing it in 4.3 is that the existence of the
specialization of the current template represents a bug in the
C++ standard and (likely) also a bug in user code.

Martin