stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: test for
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:13:01 GMT
Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> The possible fix of the STDCXX-206 and STDCXX-205 is here
> It required changes in several places:
> What do you think about this?

I'm still thinking about what the best way to deal with it is
and discussing it with others. I made similar changes last week
and implemented the proposed resolution I mentioned previously.
I tested them with an updated version of the width test (the
original contained a number of bugs that I fixed last Friday):

The changes are attached for your review. The new behavior is
guarded by the _RWSTD_NO_EXT_KEEP_WIDTH_ON_FAILURE macro. Defining
the macro disables the new behavior and enables the behavior required
by the current standard (except for the boolalpha part which is just
a silly mistake in the standard).


View raw message