https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65470
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> --- (In reply to aral from comment #3) > I don't argue that it might be a misunderstanding of the user, hence my > suggestion 1) - however, I disagree with your wording "clearly documented" > as far as > > (a) http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/regex/regex_search and > (b) http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/regex/regex_search/ > > are concerned. I could not find any clear statement on "c++ official > language reference" with a google search. Is (a) official? No, neither (a) nor (b) are official C++ Standard specifications. A relevant one would be ISO/IEC 14882:2011 for C++11 for example. The Standard itself is no text book, so your definition of "clarity" does need to be reflected by that. See e.g. the link provided on https://isocpp.org/std/the-standard to retrieve it or as an approximation to the official document refer to the current working *draft* that can be found here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4296.pdf But all this exceeds the responsibility for this bug tracking system. You could probably request an enhancement of the libstdc++ documentation, but I believe that a priority of P3 major is not an appropriate one for this.
