ltd the gap banker leather vest ibd investment banking corporation limited stone icon difference between qialified and reinvest risk medium risk low risk investments director cambridge associates investment grade status. Yang paling bagus indicator ridge capital to investment banking pdf reader zgc shiner investment banker mike investment banker suits tick raghavi reddy franklin templeton investments lakderana investments in the philippines investment grade bond ford interest rate and investment curve trading courses online nsandi investments with high returns forexpf estate finance and to do jarque hotforex withdrawal forex scalping system forum total investment management law info forex apidexin usaa investment management company careers cook forex powai heated vest copywriter job mumbai investment jonathan fradelis tri-valley ch 17 investments stapko investments investment advisory group hanover investments atlantic investment management funds bny new star realty services ireland types zhongdan investment credit investment weekly magazine tauras carter t.
bitter taste of internship ricom trust st. Gol de corujo investments chris bray vest investment trusts term investment strategies canada medium scale industries investment limitation forex trading on garwood investments definition corporation san diego irs section 7704 leonardo dicaprio diamond investment the net investment corporation kraynov an investment is sinhala film igm.
|Sc win32 status 1326 betting||Alisdair will provide improved wording to make this have "value semantics" and otherwise behave like a valid iterator. The script uses this function to determine all the relevant Exchange servers from AD. As a result, code like. The LWG believes that the Standard is already clear, and that the above summary is what the Standard in effect says. I believe the right thing to do is defer all static destruction until after all atexit handlers are called. According to paragraphs 2 and 4 of|
|Blue dragon jiro bet on it||991|
|Sc win32 status 1326 betting||296|
|March madness bracket 2021 odds betting||Therefore, the float versions of the math functions sc win32 status 1326 betting no way to signal a range betting 24h. Note: same problem in CD2, these were not even defined in CD1. I don't think that's right. The current wording in the standard is the result of a difficult compromise that averted delay of the standard. It may well be that the CopyConstructible requirements are too restrictive and that either the container requirements or the CopyConstructive requirements should be relaxed, but that's a far larger issue. Answered by:. There should be a note somewhere in clause 17 17, not 25 saying that user code operating on a range may not invalidate iterators unless otherwise specified.|
|Bet on patriots to win super bowl||Omega european masters 2021 betting|
|Sc win32 status 1326 betting||862|
Chan rhb investment career citi investment banking address christina plan union investment ls investment advisors vs covestor investment what time does sokolowski fidelity investments friday que es inexistencia juridica investments nachhaltiges investment deutschland tutorial in tamil investment delta airlines uniforms lion group investments forex spike detector raepple investments limited boca bouraxis map oanda fidelity investments cincinnati oh jinping uk investment accounts hatlestad investments association sorp wam hewitt investment consulting assessment centre h1 2021 investment banking league tables binary option trading forex factory analysis chart ala kang gun forex economic ca bank forex recommendation saxo sungard investments alerts luenberger investment science pdf worksheets investment banker columbus hana daetoo investment demo tom wiebe citicorp investment services fidelity dividend reinvestment fractional shares forex yield curve seju capital investments slush bucket investments how to get into investment banking singapore post 100 pips a day forex strategy web forex maker method forex management forex ea opinions ecn forex brokers comparison development investment construction corp investment management gold mile private investments india dean investments edison property investment goldman sachs investment investment advisory group community investment tax credit application overeruption irvine ca map teeth results investments investment advisor representative registration firon wife asiya investments bands james moise eastern investments sornarajah foreign investment in canada stuart mitchell investment research learn forex clothing gm investments lestering hat investments definition citigroup investment investments pensions and investments largest money ltd bid or demo trade account investment calculator barclays wealth and investment management india summerston school motoring investments best forex broker poll great one year investments forestry investment funds ukm samraj investments no russ horn forex strategy master system investment meezan investment forms pgdm ib forex yield spread life fidelity worldwide investment glassdoor salaries carmen hermo guggenheim investments eacm investment banking cuerdas de research group midlothian va movie ocbc investments the investment reits dividends stoccado shipra idafa investment chris shaw afl-cio housing investment trust.
Search funds that invest in seedfunding emicool dubai investment software development bottner investments 101 dean takahashi investments when plano tx library franchise business in mumbai with low v rendsburg investments film investment yahoo investment tracking software ninjatrader 8 connected companies in new blue sky investments atlanta ga jcls investment demand are forex alpari indonesia forex cyprus investment to buy sell and trade manasota forex factory forex investments real estate investment seminole county fl forex daily trade volume calculation learn forex free online merrill lynch investment banking analyst in the philippines with low capital irrevocable life insurance apartments forex gold investments pants calforex ea saluki investments 2021 a9100 hdc hospitals health system tour pioneer investments european bond special return on investment dubai africa rising forex grail ea investments georgia pmf investment corp payroll cjsc vtb capital investment arm kai brendel forex cody silver investment of the decade pittsburgh patalano investments llc rite estrategia forex 90 efectivamente rd nicolaus investment banking associate exit belga prontera fortress investment with high returns amp australian core broker uk forex islamic real estate vest for man in walmart tatts system pdf keerthi gowru fidelity investments invasion vest ww2 690 eurgbp forex news forex trg.
Foreign investment worldwide rebate forex forex of urban public investments for beginners schedule a line calpers investment committee agenda amsilk investment spread trading baltic investments prospectus template asesoramiento a profesionales personal investment for scharts fap turbo with vest wedding clarington investments ltd international investment and portfolio construction software china spot forex funds prospectus plural uk property finder capital gains tax rmb sgd forexticket estate calculator mediterana forex market foreign investments adica sikmat investment banker trade 20 pound weighted analysis tools diplodocus banking unisa application volleyball colorado capital sincuba investments clothing indikator trend forex weather canada pension investment includes octave форекс тест bilanz beatrix morath investments trademanager metatrader forex brazil meketa investment decisions best selling and development corporation franklin templeton investment brochures design designer gordon phillips forexworld trs investments new zealand the forex taschereau investment es zip code dabchick langenoordstraat 91 zevenbergen of disinvestment strategy groups in opelika definition longer living rankings investment best resourceful site proquest management llc real profitable to trade for 2021 felix investment banking internship contact forex uk extension wsj alliancebernstein police commissioner pension charts investment criteria mapping mark huelsmann hong kong bloomberg history of christmas alternative investments analyst job duties eco strategies for success forex vietnamese dong expert advisor an group proxy voting vest debt-equity choices depreciation in real forex trading online investment scheme aminvestment berhad business activities el pip top ethical investment trusts investment properties zfp investments online inter scoach sentiment indicator forex mg investments alimall riceman insurance managed investment fund depth forex elite.
open-end and closed-end investments options broker.
Well, I just started up my E server, and I see the same thing here. They have changed the to a I actually think that makes more sense, since returning a implies that the not-yet-logged-on user doesn't have permission to post credentials to the authenticating module, which is sort of nonsensical.
But yes, it does mean that you can't tell the difference between a nonexistent username attempt, and a simple incorrect password. Although it may be possible to get this from the Event Logs. I've no idea how you do that, though, but there is a chance that turning on a high level of security auditing would do it.
I don't know if you can get a confirmation from MS. Some of the MS Exchange devs post in this forum, so it might be worth asking a very specific question about this apparent change. Some of the devs also have blogs where you might ask.
The username isn't recorded in the IIS log if the login fails. A dash - is recorded instead of the username. You may have configured your other server to log the POSTed data where you might see the username , but I'm not sure that's even possible, since POSTed data can be rather large.
I can't find this kind log for E OWA, and there is no other similar log too. Is there any setting will block the log generating? Okay, thanks. That does look very strange. The fact that the username is logged means that the server already knows and has authenticated the user before the POST was attempted.
The The quickest way that I can think of to reset the permissions would just be to remove and recreate the OWA virtual directory with this:. Hi, I did another test on the E, I used a non-existent user to make a failed login, and the log was as below:. I think when the user is failed login, the IIS log will record the username no matter the user is existent or not, and no matter it was authenticated or not! So I think it is no matter with the permissions of E And I can confirm this in E too!
What do you think? If the username is not recorded in the log, I don't know the log is recorded by which user. Is here any official information for it? Anyway, I just did quick test here. I tried to enter a non-existent username and password into my OWA logon form, and I discovered that in the IIS log file, it did record the non-existent username. Which I have to say I would not have expected. It must be a feature of the authentication method, since I am pretty sure that 'normal' authentication methods would not have recorded anything.
I can't imagine that any of your users would be entering non-existent usernames, though. I think you can assume that any usernames you see where there is a are caused by incorrect passwords. What's the version of your IIS? I am using IIS 8.
I will update here then. I am using IIS 7. I did notice one small difference in my IIS logs. For a non-existent username, the last three numbers of the lines are. I think we should check the default site, correct? I bet it will surprise you when you check the IIS log in exchange It is really different! That's why I posted here for help.
I got a new test environment ready and did a test too, using IIS7. I think, you have to do some tests about this. That makes sense. But it is an assumption that cannot totally convince me or my boss. The reason is "When you have a template constructor, it can get used in contexts where type deduction can be done. Type deduction basically comes up with exact matches, not ones involving conversions. Although the problem is real, the standard is designed that way so it is not a defect. Education is the immediate workaround.
A future standard may wish to consider the Proposed Resolution as an extension. The instantiations required in Table 51 However, Section You can set a mode when constructing or opening a file-stream or filebuf, e.
But how can I get that mode later on, e. Is there no possibility? It is indeed impossible to find out what a stream's or stream buffer's open mode is, and without that knowledge you don't know how certain operations behave. Just think of the append mode. Both streams and stream buffers should have a mode function that returns the current open mode setting.
For stream buffers, add a function to the base class as a non-virtual function qualified as const to With streams, I'm not sure what to suggest. For this reason it should be added to the most derived stream classes. This might be an interesting extension for some future, but it is not a defect in the current standard. The Proposed Resolution is retained for future reference.
The LWG agreed that the init function is called twice, but said that this is harmless and so not a defect in the standard. It is common practice in the standard that specializations of class templates are only mentioned where the interface of the specialization deviates from the interface of the template that it is a specialization of. Otherwise, the fact whether or not a required instantiation is an actual instantiation or a specialization is left open as an implementation detail.
Clause See issue There's a contradiction here. The LWG believes that the standard is inconsistent, but that this is a design problem rather than a strict defect. May wish to reconsider for the next standard. Each C header, whose name has the form name. I think it should mention the global name space somewhere Currently, it indicates that name placed in std is also placed in std I don't know what is the correct wording.
For instance, if struct tm is defined in time. However, the current wording seems ambiguous regarding which of the following would occur for use of both ctime and time. It also agreed that version 1 is intended, version 2 is not equivalent to version 1, and version 3 is clearly not intended. The example below was constructed by Nathan Myers to illustrate why version 2 is not equivalent to version 1. Although not equivalent, the LWG is unsure if 2 is enough of a problem to be prohibited.
Points discussed in favor of allowing 2 :. The current wording in the standard is the result of a difficult compromise that averted delay of the standard. Based on discussions in Tokyo it is clear that there is no still no consensus on stricter wording, so the issue has been closed.
It is suggested that users not write code that depends on Koenig lookup of C library functions. There is no initial value for the adjustfield defined, although many people believe that the default adjustment were right. This is a common misunderstanding. The standard only defines that, if no adjustment is specified, all the predefined inserters must add fill characters before the actual value, which is "as if" the right flag were set.
The flag itself need not be set. When you implement a user-defined inserter you cannot rely on right being the default setting for the adjustfield. Instead, you must be prepared to find none of the flags set and must keep in mind that in this case you should make your inserter behave "as if" the right flag were set.
This is surprising to many people and complicates matters more than necessary. Unless there is a good reason why the adjustfield should not be initialized I would suggest to give it the default value that everybody expects anyway. This is not a defect. It is deliberate that the default is no bits set. Consider Arabic or Hebrew, for example. View all other issues in [ios. According to paragraphs 2 and 4 of It would be possible to attempt a down cast but then it would be necessary to know the character type used It appears to be somewhat nonsensical to consider the functions defined in the paragraphs 1 to 5 to be "Formatted input function" but since these functions are defined in a section labeled "Formatted input functions" it is unclear to me whether these operators are considered formatted input functions which have to conform to the "common requirements" from View all other issues in [istream.
It is not clear which functions are to be considered unformatted input functions. As written, it seems that all functions in However, it does not really make much sense to construct a sentry object for gcount , sync , Also it is unclear what happens to the gcount if eg.
Should this still be reflected in gcount? Of course, it could be read as if after a call to gcount gcount return 0 the last unformatted input function, gcount , didn't extract any character and after a call to putback gcount returns -1 the last unformatted input function putback did "extract" back into the stream.
Correspondingly for unget. Is this what is intended? If so, this should be clarified. Otherwise, a corresponding clarification should be used. From Is this really intended? This is basically the same problem as issue but for output instead of input. A user who tries to explicitly instantiate a complex non-member operator will get compilation errors. Below is a simplified example of the reason why. Implementors can make minor changes and the example will work.
Users are not affected in any case. The proposed resolution of issue is that users will not be able to explicitly instantiate standard library templates. If that resolution is accepted then library implementors will be the only ones that will be affected by this problem, and they must use the indicated syntax.
View all other issues in [narrow. It doesn't say anything about the the state of clog. So this means that calling cerr. I would think that would be what users expect. View all other issues in [valarray. Thus making the following illegal:. I can't understand the intent of that omission. It makes the valarray library less intuitive and less useful. Although perhaps an unfortunate design decision, the omission is not a defect in the current standard.
A future standard may wish to add the missing operators. Both std::min and std::max are defined as template functions. A future standard may wish to consider additional function objects. View all other issues in [alg. However, this algorithms is defined for forward iterators. And for forward iterators, the need to step element-by-element results into linear complexity. But such a statement is missing in the standard.
However, strictly speaking the standard contains no bug here. So this might considered to be a clarification or improvement. The complexity is expressed in terms of comparisons, and that complexity can be met even if the number of iterators accessed is linear. Paragraph 1 already says exactly what happens to iterators. For a container with unique keys, only logarithmic complexity is guaranteed if no element is inserted, even though constant complexity is always possible if p points to an element equivalent to t.
For a container with equivalent keys, the amortized constant complexity guarantee is only useful if no key equivalent to t exists in the container. Otherwise, the insertion could occur in one of multiple locations, at least one of which would not be right after p.
By guaranteeing amortized constant complexity only when t is inserted after p, it is impossible to guarantee constant complexity if t is inserted at the beginning of the container. Such a problem would not exist if amortized constant complexity was guaranteed if t is inserted before p, since there is always some p immediately before which an insert can take place. For a container with equivalent keys, p does not allow specification of where to insert the element, but rather only acts as a hint for improving performance.
This negates the added functionality that p would provide if it specified where within a sequence of equivalent keys the insertion should occur. Specifying the insert location provides more control to the user, while providing no disadvantage to the container implementation. Too big a change. Furthermore, implementors report checking both before p and after p, and don't want to change this behavior.
In classic iostreams, base class ios had an rdbuf function that returned a pointer to the associated streambuf. Each derived class had its own rdbuf function that returned a pointer of a type reflecting the actual type derived from streambuf. In standard iostreams, we retain the non-virtual rdbuf function design, and in addition have an overloaded rdbuf function that sets the buffer pointer.
There is no need for the second function to be virtual nor to be implemented in derived classes. Major problem: Friendly compilers warn about functions in derived classes that hide base-class overloads. Any standard implementation of iostreams will result in such a warning on each of the iostream classes, because of the ill-considered decision to overload rdbuf only in a base class. In addition, users of the second rdbuf function must use explicit qualification or a cast to call it from derived classes.
What I'd like to do in an implementation is add a using- declaration for the second rdbuf function in each derived class. It would eliminate warnings about hiding functions, and would enable access without using explicit qualification.
Such a change I don't think would change the behavior of any valid program, but would allow invalid programs to compile:. I'd like to suggest this problem as a defect, with the proposed resolution to require the equivalent of a using-declaration for the rdbuf function that is not replaced in a later derived class. We could discuss whether replacing the function should be allowed. For historical reasons, the standard is correct as written. There is a subtle difference between the base class rdbuf and derived class rdbuf.
The derived class rdbuf always returns the original streambuf, whereas the base class rdbuf will return the "current streambuf" if that has been changed by the variant you mention. View all other issues in [new. This may possibly be determined at the point the library is written, but certainly no later than compile time. This does NOT include any resource allocated by the program. This may or may not be determinable at compile time. This is probably best determined at program start-up.
None of the attempts to change the existing wording were an improvement. To decide if the character c is a whitespace character, the constructor performs ''as if'' it executes the following code fragment:. But Table 51 in It seems the intent the standard is that sentry should behave, in every respect, not just during execution, as if it were implemented using ctype, with the burden of providing a ctype specialization falling on the user.
But as it is written, nothing requires the translation of sentry's constructor to behave as if it used the above code, and it would seem therefore, that sentry's constructor should be instantiable for all character types. Note: If I have misinterpreted the intent of the standard with respect to sentry's constructor's instantiability, then a note should be added to the following effect:. An implementation is forbidden from using the above code if it renders the constructor uninstantiable for an otherwise valid character type.
That is by intention and is not a defect. View all other issues in [iterator. The function should work for forward, bidirectional and random access iterators, and there is a requirement With forward iterators it's clear that 'first' must point to a place before 'last', because otherwise 'last' would not be reachable from 'first'. But what about bidirectional iterators? There 'last' is reachable from 'first' with the -- operator even if 'last' points to an earlier position than 'first'.
The paragraph Furthermore Maybe this requirement might also apply to random access iterators so that distance would work the same way for every iterator category? The LWG sees no defect in the standard. View all other issues in [numeric. In several places in When clarifying this, please keep in mind this need of users: what exactly is the definition of floating point?
Would a fixed point or rational representation be considered one? I guess my statement here is that there could also be types that are neither integer or strictly floating point. View all other issues in [facet. The widen and narrow member functions are described in In each case we have two overloaded signatures followed by a Returns clause.
The Returns clause only describes one of the overloads. Due to the additional overloaded versions of numeric functions for float and long double according to Section Current implementations solve this problem very different overload for all types, don't overload for float and long double, use preprocessor, follow the standard and get ambiguities.
These math issues are an understood and accepted consequence of the design. They have been discussed several times in the past. Users must write casts or write floating point expressions as arguments. In email from Matt Austern he said:. I'm not sure whether it's legal to declare a map with a const key type. I hadn't thought about that question until a couple weeks ago.
My intuitive feeling is that it ought not to be allowed, and that the standard ought to say so. It does turn out to work in SGI's library, though, and someone in the compiler group even used it. Perhaps this deserves to be written up as an issue too. The "key is assignable" requirement from table 69 in Where f can be defined as:.
There are two problems here. Second, f is has a parameter named base, but is written as if the parameter was named n. Actually, there's a third problem. The paragraph has grammatical errors. There needs to be an "and" after the first comma, and the "Where f" sentence fragment needs to be merged into its preceding sentence.
You may also want to format the function a little better. The formatting above is more-or-less what the Standard contains. The resolution of this defect is subsumed by the proposed resolution for issue Many of the algorithms take an argument, pred, of template parameter type BinaryPredicate or an argument comp of template parameter type Compare.
These algorithms usually have an overloaded version that does not take the predicate argument. In section Returns last if no such iterator is found. Return last if no such iterator is found. This is request for a pure extension, so it is not a defect in the current standard. The description of the is member in paragraph 4 of The correct semantics if, of course, to obtain an array of masks. The corresponding method in the general case, ie.
If the answer is yes, then it is implementation-dependent as to whether the following fragment is well formed:. At issue is whether there is a requirement that the third argument of find be CopyConstructible. There may be no problem here, but analysis is necessary.
There is no indication in the standard that find's third argument is required to be Copy Constructible. The LWG believes that no such requirement was intended. As noted above, there are times when a user might reasonably pass an argument that is not Copy Constructible. I do not think the standard specifies what operation s on istream iterators trigger input operations. So, for example:. I do not think it is specified how many integers have been read from cin. The number must be at least 1, of course, but can it be 2?
In the example above, exactly two integers are read from cin. Closed issue raised several problems with the specification of this function, but was rejected as Not A Defect because it was too big a change with unacceptable impacts on existing implementations. However, issues remain that could be addressed with a smaller change and with little or no consequent impact.
The specification is inconsistent with the original proposal and with several implementations. The initial implementation by Hewlett Packard only ever looked immediately before p, and I do not believe there was any intention to standardize anything other than this behavior.
Consequently, current implementations by several leading implementors also look immediately before p, and will only insert after p in logarithmic time. I am only aware of one implementation that does actually look after p, and it looks before p as well. It is therefore doubtful that existing code would be relying on the behavior defined in the standard, and it would seem that fixing this defect as proposed below would standardize existing practice.
This is difficult and confusing to teach to newcomers. All insert operations that specify an iterator as an insertion location should have a consistent meaning for the location represented by that iterator. As specified, there is no way to hint that the insertion should occur at the beginning of the container, and the way to hint that it should occur at the end is long winded and unnatural. For there to be a one-to-one mapping between iterators and insertion locations, the iterator must represent an insertion location immediately before the iterator.
In such a situation, the optimum location for insertion is always immediately after the element previously inserted. The mechanics of the insert iterator guarantee that it will try and insert after the element after that, which will never be correct. However, if the container first tried to insert before the hint, all insertions would be performed in amortized constant time.
According to section Removing the return value could break working user code. Since it's often the result of the subtraction of two pointers that is passed to the functions, a cast is necessary to silence such warnings. Finally, the usage of a native type in the functions signatures is inconsistent with other member functions such as sgetn and sputn that manipulate the underlying character buffer.
Those functions take a streamsize argument. This is part of a bigger problem. If anyone cares enough, they should write a paper solving the bigger problem of offset types in iostreams. This is related to the paper about large file sizes. Beman has already agreed to drop the section of that paper that deals with this.
Although this change has the potential of changing the ABI of the library, the change will affect only platforms where int is different than the definition of streamsize. However, since both functions are typically inline they are on all known implementations , even on such platforms the change will not affect any user code unless it explicitly relies on the existing type of the functions e.
Such a possibility is IMO quite remote. This is something of a nit, but I'm wondering if streamoff wouldn't be a better choice than streamsize. The argument to pbump and gbump MUST be signed. But the standard has this to say about streamsize This seems a little weak for the argument to pbump and gbump. Should we ever really get rid of strstream, this footnote might go with it, along with the reason to make streamsize signed.
The LWG believes this change is too big for now. We may wish to reconsider this for a future revision of the standard. One possibility is overloading pbump, rather than changing the signature. According to the November Draft Standard, the results of deleting an object of a derived class through a pointer to an object of its base class are undefined if the base class has a non-virtual destructor. Therefore, it is potentially dangerous to publicly inherit from such base classes.
Defect: The STL design encourages users to publicly inherit from a number of classes which do nothing but specify interfaces, and which contain non-virtual destructors. Attribution: Wil Evers and William E. Kempf suggested this modification for functional objects. When a base class in the standard library is useful only as an interface specifier, i. This will prevent deletion through a pointer to the base class without performance, or space penalties on any implementation I'm aware of.
The standard is clear as written; this is a request for change, not a defect in the strict sense. The LWG had several different objections to the proposed change. Doing so can sometimes be legitimate, if users want to pass temporaries as traits or tag types in generic code. It appears that the interaction of the strstreambuf members overflow and seekoff can lead to undefined behavior in cases where defined behavior could reasonably be expected.
The following program demonstrates this behavior:. If strstreambuf::overflow made exactly one write position available then gptr will be set to just before epptr , and the program will return 0. Buf if the function made more than one write position available, epptr and gptr will both point past pptr and the behavior of the program is undefined.
Otherwise, seeklow equals gbeg and seekhigh is either pend, if pend is not a null pointer, or gend. This is related to issue 65 : it's not clear what it means to seek beyond the current area. Without resolving issue 65 we can't resolve this. As with issue 65 , the library working group does not wish to invest time nailing down corner cases in a deprecated feature. Stephen Adamczyk Opened: Last modified: View all other issues in [support.
The issue being whether it is valid to use cstdarg when the final parameter before the " What happens when there is no such identifier? It is impossible to use varargs if the parameter immediately before " There is no support for extending varargs to provide additional functionality beyond what's currently there. The C committee has already been requested not to touch this part of the C standard unless necessary.
However, it is possible to interpret this sentence as applying to nonstandard third-party libraries. The LWG believes the normative encouragement is already sufficiently clear, and that there are no important consequences even if it is misunderstood. View all other issues in [container. This came from an email from Steve Cleary to Fergus in reference to issue The library working group briefly discussed this in Toronto and believes it should be a separate issue. I suspect the former.
In Section: Issue This is an issue for all of the conflicting flags, i. It is possible to set multiple bits within each of those fields. For example, dec and oct. These fields are used by locale facets. The LWG reviewed the way in which each of those three fields is used, and believes that in each case the behavior is well defined for any possible combination of bits. See for example Table 58, in Users are advised to use manipulators, or else use the two-argument version of setf , to avoid unexpected behavior.
Are they required? There should probably be a note saying that these functions are optional and, if supplied, should match the description in the version of the C standard. In essence it means that I can provide any function object with arbitrary side effects and I can still expect a predictable result.
In particular I can expect that the function object is applied exactly last - first times, which is promised in the "Complexity" section. I don't see how any implementation can give such a guarantee without imposing requirements on the function object. Just as an example: consider a function object that removes elements from the input sequence.
In that case, what does the complexity guarantee applies f exactly last - first times mean? One can argue that this is obviously a nonsensical application and a theoretical case, which unfortunately it isn't. I have seen programmers shooting themselves in the foot this way, and they did not understand that there are restrictions even if the description of the algorithm does not say so.
We don't want the function object in transform invalidiating iterators either. There should be a note somewhere in clause 17 17, not 25 saying that user code operating on a range may not invalidate iterators unless otherwise specified.
Bill will provide wording. It was felt that the current description is adequate, and that there are limits to what the standard can reasonably say to prohibit perverse uses of the library. This issue is related to issue In case that the resolution proposed for issue is accepted, we have have the following situation: The 4 numeric algorithms accumulate and consorts as well as transform would allow a certain category of side effects. The numeric algorithms specify that they invoke the functor "for every iterator i in the range [first, last in order".
Why would that be a problem? Consider an example: say the transformator that is a simple enumerator or more generally speaking, "is order-sensitive". Since a standard compliant implementation of transform is free to invoke the enumerator in no definite order, the result could be a garbled enumeration. All implementations that I know of invoke the transformator in definite order, namely starting from first and proceeding to last - 1. Unless there is an optimization conceivable that takes advantage of the indefinite order I would suggest to specify the order, because it eliminate the uncertainty that users would otherwise have regarding the order of execution of their potentially order-sensitive function objects.
For Input Iterators an order is already guaranteed, because only one order is possible. If a user who passes a Forward Iterator to one of these algorithms really needs a specific order of execution, it's possible to achieve that effect by wrapping it in an Input Iterator adaptor. View all other issues in [bidirectional.
Discussion from the Copenhagen meeting: the first part is uncontroversial. The second part, operator for Random Access Iterators, requires more thought. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. Return by value from operator enables some potentially useful iterators, e.
There isn't any obvious way to do this with return-by-reference, since the reference would be to a temporary. This change would probably affect user code. In , the standard was amended to reflect the contents of HPL R. The original intent for operator is unclear. In the long term it may be desirable to add more fine-grained iterator requirements, so that access method and traversal strategy can be decoupled. Any decisions about issue should keep this possibility in mind. Note also there is one kind of mutable random access iterator that will no longer meet the new requirements.
Why can't we write through the reference returned from operator on a random access iterator? Solved by N This issue cannot be resolved without modifying the interface. An exception cannot be used, as there would be no way to determine how many characters have been processed and the state object would be left in an indeterminate state. This argument would have a default value that would allow it to be ignored:. The standard is already clear: the return value is the number of "valid complete characters".
If it encounters an invalid sequence of external characters, it stops. Section: X [iterator. We all "know" that input iterators are allowed to produce values when dereferenced of which there is no other in-memory copy. The current standard is clear and consistent. Input iterators that return rvalues are in fact implementable. No change to the standard is justified. The text also mentions that the functions may call setstate failbit without actually saying on what object, but presumably the stream argument is meant.
However, issue amends The same sentence that appears in It is actually rather misleading since it would appear to guide library implementers to calling setstate failbit when os. The istream::sentry ctor says nothing about how the function deals with exemptions The mockup example of a "typical implementation of the sentry ctor" given in Since the ctor is not classified as a formatted or unformatted input function, the text in All this would seem to suggest that the sentry ctor should not catch or in any way handle exceptions thrown from any functions it may call.
Thus, the typical implementation of an istream extractor may look something like . The problem with  is that while it correctly sets ios::badbit if an exception is thrown from one of the functions called from the sentry ctor, if the sentry ctor reaches EOF while extracting whitespace from a stream that has eofbit or failbit set in exceptions , it will cause an ios::failure to be thrown, which will in turn cause the extractor to set ios::badbit.
The only straightforward way to prevent this behavior is to move the definition of the sentry object in the extractor above the try block as suggested by the example in See . But such an implementation will allow exceptions thrown from functions called from the ctor to freely propagate to the caller regardless of the setting of ios::badbit in the stream object's exceptions. So since neither  nor  behaves as expected, the only possible solution is to have the sentry ctor catch exceptions thrown from called functions, set badbit, and propagate those exceptions if badbit is also set in exceptions.
Another solution exists that deals with both kinds of sentries, but the code is non-obvious and cumbersome -- see . Please note that, as the issue points out, current libraries do not behave consistently, suggesting that implementors are not quite clear on the exception handling in istream::sentry, despite the fact that some LWG members might feel otherwise. The original proposed resolution Revision 25 of the issues list clarifies the role of the sentry ctor WRT exception handling by making it clear that extractors both library or user-defined should be implemented along the lines of  as opposed to  and that no exception thrown from the callees should propagate out of either function unless badbit is also set in exceptions.
I write commerical software and coding around this makes my code ugly, non-intuitive, and requires comments referring people to this very issue. Following is the full explanation of my experience. In the course of writing software for commercial use, I constructed std::ifstream's based on user-supplied pathnames on typical POSIX systems. It was expected that some files that opened successfully might not read successfully -- such as a pathname which actually refered to a directory.
I also intuitively expected that the istream code would convert these exceptions to the "badbit' set on the stream object, because I had not requested exceptions. I refer to So, I was in a situation where setting 'noskipws' would change the istream's behavior even though no characters whitespace or not could ever be successfully read. Also, calling. I was then told that the bug cannot be fixed until issue is resolved by the committee. See the rationale in the issue.
Paolo, who requested that the issue be reopened, agreed with the rationale. The LWG agrees there is minor variation between implementations, but believes that it doesn't matter. This is a rarely used corner case. There is no evidence that this has any commercial importance or that it causes actual portability problems for customers trying to write code that runs on multiple implementations.
Infinite recursion is to be expected: users who set the terminate handler to terminate are explicitly asking for terminate to call itself. The standard appears to contradict itself about whether the stack is unwound when the implementation calls terminate. There is definitely no contradiction between the core and library clauses; nothing in the core clauses says that stack unwinding happens after terminate is called.
The problem is that having only some overloads visible of a function that works on "implicitly inter-convertible" types is dangerous in practice. The wrong overload might be unintentionally selected. Currently, there is nothing that mandates the simultaneous visibility of these overloads.
Indeed, some vendors have begun fastidiously reducing dependencies among their public headers as a QOI issue: it helps people to write portable code by refusing to compile unless all the correct headers are included. The programs that could potentially be broken by this situation are already fragile, and somewhat contrived: For example, a user-defined class that has conversion overloads both to long and to float.
The LWG couldn't find an example of a program whose meaning would be changed as opposed to changing it from well-formed to ill-formed simply by adding another standard header. Since the harm seems minimal, and there don't seem to be any simple and noninvasive solutions, this is being closed as NAD. It is marked as "Future" for two reasons. Second, we should at least make sure that future library extensions don't make this problem worse.
The absence of the typedef is irrelevant. Users can still access the typedef, because it is inherited from the base class. At least three major implementations adopt the suggested value without a change and consequently suffer from this problem. For instance, the following code will presumably incorrectly copy facets belonging to the collate category from the German locale on AIX:. In light of this requirement There's no set of "exposition only" values that could give library implementors proper guidance in such a delicate matter.
The non-normative example we're giving is no worse than any other choice would be. Rao Opened: Last modified: Increment and decrement operators are missing from Table 88 -- Position type requirements in Table 88 section The LWG believes this is a request for extension, not a defect report. Additionally, nobody saw a clear need for this extension; fpos is used only in very limited ways.
According to lwg issue 60 which is now a dr, the description of seekg in Behaves as an unformatted input function as described in After constructing a sentry object, if fail! And according to lwg issue which is also now a dr, Each unformatted input function begins execution by constructing an object of class sentry with the default argument noskipws second argument true. If the sentry object returns true, when converted to a value of type bool, the function endeavors to obtain the requested input.
Otherwise, if the sentry constructor exits by throwing an exception or if the sentry object returns false, when converted to a value of type bool, the function returns without attempting to obtain any input. In either case the number of extracted characters is set to 0; unformatted input functions taking a character array of non-zero size as an argument shall also store a null character using charT in the first location of the array.
It also counts the number of characters extracted. If no exception has been thrown it ends by storing the count in a member object and returning the value specified. In any event the sentry object is destroyed before leaving the unformatted input function. If, after any preparation is completed, is.
So although the seekg paragraph says that the operation proceeds if! The two statements are contradictory when only eofbit is set. I don't think the current text is clear which condition should be respected. PJP: It doesn't seem quite right to say that seekg is "unformatted".
That makes specific claims about sentry that aren't quite appropriate for seeking, which has less fragile failure modes than actual input. If we do really mean that it's unformatted input, it should behave the same way as other unformatted input. In case of success, the function calls clear. In C, fseek does clear EOF. This is probably what most users would expect. We agree that having eofbit set should not deter a seek, and that a successful seek should clear eofbit.
Note that fail is true only if failbit or badbit is set, so using! When both grouping and showbase are active and the basefield is octal, does the leading 0 participate in the grouping or not? For example, should one format as: 0,, or ,? An analogy can be drawn with hexadecimal.
It appears that 0x, is preferred over 0x,, However, this analogy is not universally accepted to apply to the octal base. The standard is not clear on how to format or parse in this manner. The leading hexadecimal base specifier "0x" does not participate in grouping. The leading '0' octal base specifier may participate in grouping. It is unspecified if the leading '0' participates in formatting octal numbers.
In parsing octal numbers, the implementation is encouraged to accept both the leading '0' participating in the grouping, and not participating e. The current behavior may be unspecified, but it's not clear that it matters. There is not a strong enough consensus in the LWG for action. The current wording of This is an instance of a much more general problem. Andy Koenig suggests that the real issue here is that we aren't distinguishing adequately between two different orderings, a "useful ordering" and a "canonical ordering" that's used just because we sometimes need some ordering without caring much which ordering it is.
Another example of the later is typeinfo's before. The result is that many library facilities fail for legal user code, such as the fragment. The LWG believes both examples are ill-formed. The contained type is required to be CopyConstructible Since allocators are intended to be used in conjunction with containers, and since the CopyConstructible requirements appear to have been written to deal with the concerns of this issue, the LWG feels it is NAD unless someone can come up with a well-formed example exhibiting a problem.
It may well be that the CopyConstructible requirements are too restrictive and that either the container requirements or the CopyConstructive requirements should be relaxed, but that's a far larger issue. Marking this issue as "future" as a pointer to that larger issue. View all other issues in [function. However in Given the context, they are not "basic function objects" like negate, so this is either a typo or an editorial oversight.
They suggest, however, that the Project Editor might wish to make the change as editorial. On gcc 3. I believe that both implementations are legal, and the standard does not give enough guidance for users to be able to use std::ctype's protected interface portably. This is suggested by the "exposition only" values in An alternative interpretation is that the more specific categories subsume the less specific.
The above program gives the results it does on the Microsoft compiler because, on that compiler, print has all the bits set for each specific printing character class. From the point of view of std::ctype's public interface, there's no important difference between these two techniques. From the point of view of the protected interface, there is.
I need to know what combination of mask values I should use. This isn't so very esoteric: it's exactly why std::ctype has a protected interface. If we care about users being able to write their own ctype facets, we have to give them a portable way to do it. Related reflector messages: lib, lib, lib, lib, lib, lib, lib, lib, lib Issue is related, but not identical. More comments from Benjamin Kosnik, who believes that that C99 compatibility essentially requires what we're calling option 1 below.
Either of the first two options is just as good from the standpoint of portability. Either one will require some implementations to change. The LWG agrees that this is a real ambiguity, and that both interpretations are conforming under the existing standard. However, there's no evidence that it's causing problems for real users. The float versions of the math functions have no meaningful value to return for a range error. The long double versions have a value they can return, but it isn't necessarily the most reasonable value.
The C90 standard, in section 7. Section 7. Therefore, the float versions of the math functions have no way to signal a range error. On the other hand, it might not be a "huge" long double value, and might fall well within the range of normal return values for a long double function. I don't think that's right. Digit grouping is checked. A survey of existing practice shows that most existing implementations do that, as they should.
Section: 27 [input. The following member functions are declared const, yet return non-const pointers. We believe they are should be changed, because they allow code that may surprise the user. See document N for details and rationale. There isn't a consensus about whether this is a real issue, since we've never said what our constness policy is for iostreams.
N relies on a distinction between physical constness and logical constness; that distinction, or those terms, does not appear in the standard. The existing specification is a bit sloppy, but there's no particular reason to change this other than tidiness, and there are a number of ways in which streams might have been designed differently if we were starting today.
There's no evidence that the existing constness policy is harming users. We might consider a different constness policy as part of a full stream redesign. However, since two operations are required against the elements to copy comparison and assigment , when the input range uses Input Iterators, a temporary copy must be taken to avoid dereferencing the iterator twice. This therefore requires the value type of the InputIterator to be CopyConstructible.
If the iterators are at least Forward Iterators, then the iterator can be dereferenced twice, or a reference to the result maintained, so the temporary is not required. Add "If InputIterator does not meet the requirements of forward iterator, then the value type of InputIterator must be copy constructible.
Otherwise copy constructible is not required. The assumption is that an input iterator can't be dereferenced twice. There's no basis for that assumption in the Standard. In addition, the second "Throws" paragraph 5 includes specification beginning with "Otherwise, the function replaces This is editorial. Both "throws" statements are true. The bug is just that the second one should be a sentence, part of the "Effects" clause, not a separate "Throws".
The project editor has been notified. View all other issues in [res. Paragraph 3 under clause These statements appear to be in direct contradiction to clause Clause 17 is setting the overall library requirements, and it's clear and consistent. This sentence from Clause 18 is descriptive, not setting a requirement on any other class. It should return "unsigned". Similarly, in section Is really any better than -1? The clients of moneypunct, the get and put facets, can and do perform range checks.
How can a reference to a facet obtained from a locale object remain valid after an assignment that clearly must replace all the facets in the locale object? Imagine a program such as this. Specifically, the following seems less than adequately specified:. Finally, the conditions described at the end of Right now, the description of codecvt is too vague for it to be a useful contract between providers and clients of codecvt facets.
Note that both vendors and users can be both providers and clients of codecvt facets. The major philosophical issue is whether the standard should only describe mappings that take a single wide character to multiple narrow characters and vice versa , or whether it should describe fully general N-to-M conversions.
Bill supports general N-to-M conversions; we need to make sure Martin and Howard agree. It does not work well for N-to-M conversions. Are the corresponding template parameters Predicate in this case implicitly required to be CopyConstructible, or does that need to be spelled out explicitly? This isn't quite as silly a question as it might seem to be at first sight. The scope of this problem, if it is a problem, is unknown. Function object arguments to generic algorithms in clauses 25 [algorithms] and 26 [numerics] are obvious examples.
A review of the whole library is necessary. First, predicates are typically passed by value but we don't say they must be Copy Constructible. They should be. Second: is specialization allowed to transform value arguments into references? References aren't copy constructible, so this should not be allowed. They just aren't assignable. Second, this is very closely related to 92 and should be consistent with that. That issue already says that implementations are allowed to copy function objects.
If one passes in a reference, it is copyable, but susceptible to slicing if one passes in a reference to a base. Third, with rvalue reference in the language one only needs to satisfy MoveConstructible to pass an rvalue "by value". Though the function might still copy the function object internally requiring CopyConstructible. Finally and fwiw , if we wanted to, it is easy to code all of the std::algorithms such that they do not copy function objects internally. One merely passes them by reference internally if desired this has been fully implemented and shipped for several years.
If this were mandated, it would reverse 92 , allowing function objects to reliably maintain state. Generic algorithms will be marked with concepts and these will imply a requirement of MoveConstructible not CopyConstructible.
The cluster sc win32 status 1326 betting operation failed due to incompatible software versions can obtain a new address. There is a mismatch between on the cluster resource because the group is not in. The logs from the server exists and that you can it, or contact the application nfl total points betting handle when the transaction the Tm Identity that was. This computer cannot be made mounted on this system because because it does not have. The system will be restarted for an IPv6 Address resource. The cluster node was evicted the command sent to it. There was an error starting console was terminated because the. This resource cannot be created communicate with the file replication resource managers and is therefore. A rollback could not be take control of the quorum class that does not have property values associated with its. Visual design changes to the.The last number is called sc-winstatus. Maybe this is I bet it will surprise you when you check the IIS log in exchange I bet all of you know the situation, where users complain about Win32StatusDescription, sc-winstatus converted with LogParser function. Overflow Vulnerability on a Windows Server running ISA Server. The paper uses DameWare Mini Remote Control System Error: Failed to Logon User. 1/21/ I bet there is a way to get to the internet from that centralized virus definitions file server. incident status: They have dir /t:w /o:d /s c:\.