Is the effect of open issue 58 that we can't rely, even on a
conforming implementation, on the code fragment in 9.6#4 doing
what it its comment says it does?

Or is this code required to do what it says, irrespective of
issue 58, and if so, what is issue 58 really asking about?

The code fragment may be non-normative, but it would be helpful
if the issue text referred to it, one way or the other.

---
[ 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                       ]