I think, that I found a minor bug in our Holy Standard. 17.3.2.1.2/p. 2
claims, that

"The bitmask type bitmask can be written:
[..]
bitmask operator~ ( bitmask X) { return static_cast<
bitmask>(static_cast<int_type>(~ X)); }
"

I think, the proposed implementation of operator~ should result in a
recursion and that the correct
implementation should be written as:

"
bitmask operator~ ( bitmask X) { return static_cast<
bitmask>(~static_cast<int_type>(X)); }
"
Can anyone confirm this?

(Sorry, if this bug has already been reprorted, but in the hurry I did
not find it in the)

Greetings from Bremen,

Daniel



---
[ 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                       ]

dsp@bdal.de (Daniel Spangenberg) wrote

> I think, that I found a minor bug in our Holy Standard. 17.3.2.1.2/p. 2
> claims, that

[snip]

>
> (Sorry, if this bug has already been reprorted, but in the hurry I did
> not find it in the)
>

This looks like library issue 262 (status DR):

  http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#262

---
[ 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                       ]