From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-14 10:14:28
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear that this part of the standard falls into
the same
> category as untested code (it almost certainly has bugs). It's not
an
> unreasonable idea to think of hacking out any nonsense and coming
up with
> our own alternative.
I agree, but I didn't want to hack it out until I determined if it
was a "bug" or just my lack of understanding. Which sections do you
propose we 86?
Bill Kempf