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
