On 12 March 2017 at 13:21, Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm now working on > > http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2861 > > The new wording state is now equivalent to basic_string_view, whose > current implementation doesn't bother verifying the requirement, so > this code (which as UB) currently compiles just fine: > > #include <string> > #include <string_view> > > struct MyTraits : std::char_traits<char> > { > typedef unsigned char char_type; > }; > > int main() > { > std::basic_string<char, MyTraits> my_string; > std::basic_string_view<char, MyTraits> my_string_view; > } > > So the least I could do is just - nothing. But it seems to me that we > could protect users from doing such silly things by adding a > static_assert to both basic_string and basic_string_view, the former > being equivalent to > > #if __cplusplus >= 201103L > static_assert(__are_same<value_type, _CharT>::value, > "traits_type::char_type must be equal to _CharT"); > #endif > > and the latter an unconditional > > static_assert(is_same<typename _Traits::char_type, _CharT>::value, > "traits_type::char_type must be equal to _CharT"); > > Would you agree with that course of action?
Not at this stage of gcc7 development. If the silly code compile fine then we risk breaking working code, and we're too close to a release to do that. We can reconsider for gcc8 (but even then, the code has undefined behaviour, so it would be a QoI choice whether to reject it or just accept it, as we do for containers where Alloc::value_type doesn't match the container's value_type).
