You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to c-dev@xerces.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2004/01/06 22:05:23 UTC

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 25048] - Missing assignment operator in util/KeyValuePair

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25048>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25048

Missing assignment operator in util/KeyValuePair

neilg@ca.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID



------- Additional Comments From neilg@ca.ibm.com  2004-01-06 21:05 -------
Seems to me like the current behaviour is more correct:  We never documented 
any support for the = operator in this class, so code should not have been 
written to rely on any behaviour with the = operator in that class exactly 
because the class's implementation could change to invalidate that code.  
You're exactly right that XMemory's addition could have changed the compiler-
provided behaviour of = on many classes; I don't think there's any appetite 
among the developers to go through every class and think about what behaviour 
for = compilers might have provided.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org