I am arguing that code should be not compiling. Not the opposite.

https://godbolt.org/z/d13x5fr9G <https://godbolt.org/z/84TK41c3P>

basic_char_traits<void***> is illegal of course. Repeat: I am arguing that
code should be not compiling. But it does and there are no warnings
whatsoever.

The only two switches used are -pedantic and -Wall. So who do we blame: the
compiler or the messenger (aka coder) or both?

Or somebody explains that code compiling and being allowed is fine,
because of some higher logic that escapes me... Why am I allowed to declare
fake types from std:: templates?


On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 14:09, Edward Catmur via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 12:30, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 27/08/2021 13:09, DBJ via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> > Thanks, Lenard, I just find it generally peculiar nobody in this
>> > honorable forum seem genuinely perturbed
>> >
>> > This code <https://godbolt.org/z/84TK41c3P>
>> >
>> > is legal...? Perhaps there is something obvious escaping my cognitive
>> > abilities...
>>
>> That code isn't legal, specifically
>>
>> #define typename(T_) (#T_)
>>
>> violates https://eel.is/c++draft/macro.names#2 as typename is a keyword.
>> https://eel.is/c++draft/tab:lex.key
>>
>
> Ignoring that (as the program seems to be unaffected by its removal), the
> program is ill-formed because basic_char_traits<void***> is not specialized
> (and cannot be specialized) and so does not meet the character traits
> requirements. http://eel.is/c++draft/string.view.template#general-1
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>