From 6398221088110095812 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d9fe358a73c69991 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: gcc@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Should failure to instantiate a function template abort compilation during overload resolution? Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:32:17 GMT Organization: Integrable Solutions Lines: 24 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <1123485075.096196.242990@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1123642375.849913.19940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1123788744 9708 158.152.254.254 (11 Aug 2005 19:32:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:32:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id j7BJWH5J029074; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 05:32:17 +1000 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:20:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:1775 francis@robinton.demon.co.uk (Francis Glassborow) writes: | In article , Gene | Bushuyev writes | >Compilers traditionally have problems implementing standard. It's not an | >argument. If that were impossible (or at least impracticle) to do then it | >would be an argument. It may be a particular compiler implementation has a | >design that makes recovery difficult, but this is conceptually nothing | >new, - the recovery is the same as the recovery from an exception, no | >back-tracking is necessary. So maybe it's time to start writing compilers in | >C++ to make it easier. | Rolling back all the look-up tables that compilers create is certainly | not a trivial task, The compiler may not need to roll back the look-up table. It may just needs to mark it as "dirty". That is easier than effectively implement rool back. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]