Bug#196754: marked as done (Implicit Conversion Allowed in Container Object Insertion)
Your message dated Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:43:05 +0200
with message-id <16189.57481.470355.361054@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Implicit Conversion Allowed in Container Object Insertion
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jun 2003 15:11:45 +0000
>From phreed@netarx.com Mon Jun 09 10:11:44 2003
Return-path: <phreed@netarx.com>
Received: from 66-147-137-4.netarx.com (exchange.netarx.com) [66.147.137.4]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19POJD-0005lV-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:11:44 -0500
Received: from netarx.com ([10.0.0.222]) by exchange.netarx.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779);
Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:11:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3EE4A3AC.4060409@netarx.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:11:40 -0400
From: Fredrick Paul Eisele <phreed@netarx.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030527 Debian/1.3.1-2
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Implicit Conversion Allowed in Container Object Insertion
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2003 15:11:41.0616 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E8DB300:01C32E99]
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.3 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: libstdc++5-dev
Version: 3.2.3-4
Severity: wishlist
Tags: upstream
/usr/include/c++/3.2/bits/stl_vector.h:893: no matching function for
call to `Field::Field(const Field&)'
...where ...
/usr/include/c++/3.2/bits/stl_vector.h:893:
_Tp __x_copy = __x;
... the intended constructor is ...
explicit Field( Field const & f)
... the difficulty can be resolved by the user code not having an
explicit constructor...
Field( Field const & f)
...or by not using an implicit conversion...
/usr/include/c++/3.2/bits/stl_vector.h:893:
_Tp __x_copy(__x);
I believe the explicit constructor should be preferred.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 196754-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Aug 2003 07:47:29 +0000
>From doko@cs.tu-berlin.de Sat Aug 16 02:47:26 2003
Return-path: <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19nvmV-0003CM-00; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:47:24 -0500
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (daemon@bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25561
for <196754-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:43:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id h7G7h5421101;
Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:43:05 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16189.57481.470355.361054@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:43:05 +0200
To: 196754-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Implicit Conversion Allowed in Container Object Insertion
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
Delivered-To: 196754-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=4.0
tests=USER_AGENT_VM
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_15 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Closing the report. No feedback on Martin's questions.
Reply to: