http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46320

--- Comment #2 from Jerry Carter <jerry at jerrycarter dot org> 2010-11-05 
17:55:25 UTC ---
Apologies.  I understood there to be a correspondence between the two (given
that basic_string::at is implemented using basic_string::operator[]) but I now
realize on second reading that the subsections (2-4) apply only to
basic_string::at.  This report has been correctly closed as invalid.  

(In reply to comment #1)
> No it shouldn't, basic_string::at throws, basic_string::operator[] doesn't

Reply via email to