Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:

| On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | > Does that make sense?
| > |
| > | Absolutely makes sense. And if we had a clean slate to work with,
| > | that's exactly what I would recommend.
| >
| > At the risk of beating a dead horse, back in 1997, Valentin Bonnard
| > reported this issue. It was quickly classified as a NAD -- for reasons
| > that puzzled us on the AFNOR group at the time. But yes, we had a
| > cleaner slate then than we do now.
|
| That must've been just before we started the current form of the LWG
| issues list. Shame, I would've liked to have read the issue. I
| checked here:
|
| http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1997/N1148.pdf
|
| but didn't see it.
|
| I like to follow the history & evolution of our decisions, and
| sometimes I learn things from it.
|
| Howard

Indeed; I am surprised that a google search with "Valentin Bonnard" and
"LWG defects" or "map value_type" returned almost nothing. And
since he hasn't been active in the C++ community we lost valuable
history (he used to keep a tab of the issues he reported.) The closest
I came to with google exercise is

  http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1391.html#103


[ we used to make a joke about this, along the line the quick
classification as NAD may have come from the impression that this is
just the French complaining again :-) ]

-- Gaby