http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53573
--- Comment #21 from Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> 2012-06-05 17:01:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) Yes, once again sorry. Obviously not GCC's problem for implementing the standard correctly, but this causes problems producing elegant datatype generic code. For example if a concept is defined in a library (using Boost Concept Checking for example) and I want to make 'int' comply to that concept, I would have to declare the new int methods before including the library. This seems very odd in end user code. In this case there is nothing intuitively wrong with the way GCC was doing it - it was not difficult for the compiler authors to implement, and nor did it lead to incorrect or hard to understand code, in fact it worked very well for generic programming. Is there any chance this 'feature' of GCC could be kept as a g++ specific extension in 'gnu++11' mode, as I think the old behaviour is an improvement over that suggested in the standard, and GCC provides other extensions to standard behaviour where it is useful. > I'm under the impression that the bug reports using the word 'broken' are the > ones most likely broken, err invalid. Maybe just another manifestation of the > illusion of confidence, well known to the psychologjsts? (for a very nice > intro > see, eg, Chabris & Simons, 'The invisible gorilla', Ch 3)