> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 6:20 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: STDCXX examples fails and reasons [MSVC]
>
> Farid Zaripov wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:56 PM
> >> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: STDCXX examples fails and reasons [MSVC]
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> time_get looks like a bug (or lack of functionality) in
> our library
> >
> > time_get::date_order() returns time_get::do_date_order() which
> > always returns dateorder () == no_order (loc/_time_get.h; line 137).
>
> Right. We ran out of time when implementing the facet. The
> standard doesn't require us to do any better so there hasn't
> been a lot of pressure to get back to it and finish the job,
> but that doesn't mean we should never do it. From a QoI point
> of view we definitely should.
Ok. I have created the issue STDCXX-459.
> > Also I observed that time_get::~time_get() should be protected
> > (22.2.5.1), but in our library the time_get::~time_get() is not
> > declared/defined.
>
> Yes, it is declared as protected in the standard to prevent
> standalone facet objects from being constructed. I'm not sure
> that's a detectable requirement. Violations of the
> requirement are detectable by non-conforming programs, but I
> can't think of a way how conformance to it could be detected
> -- can you?
It would be difficult. :)
> > The same situation with ~time_get_byname(), ~time_put(),
> > ~time_put_byname().
>
> Our implementation lets users construct facet objects and use
> (at least some) them directly rather than going through the
> use_facet interface, which seems like a reasonable thing to
> do. Can you think of a reason not to keep this extension?
No :)
Btw below is a part of the conforming program (taken from
time_get.cpp)?
-------------------
const std::time_get<char, Iter> &tg =
std::use_facet<std::time_get<char, Iter> >(std::locale ("C"));
// Display time_base::dateorder value.
std::cout << "time_base::dateorder == " << tg.date_order () <<
".\n";
-------------------
This fragment fails on Dinkumware STL because of tg.date_order() uses
(internal)
pointer to the destroyed locale object.
Farid.
