Rethinking... (Re: RFC: fp printing speedup...)

[Paolo Carlini]

Martin Sebor wrote:

> > To achieve the same result (avoid unexpected endless loops) can't we
> > just say in -5- that, if one form is overridden, the other must be
> > (consistently) overridden too or undefined behavior is expected?
> >
> > Is *this* too strong, in a different way? I don't know, but really,
> > that 12988 is missing the other form is at the root of the whole
> > discussion thread, in my opinion...
>
> I would like to think that this requirement is already covered
> by paragraph 4 above (i.e., both functions must return the same
> result). Exactly how it's achieved shouldn't matter, although in
> practice it will most likely mean that if one is overridden to
> return a result that's different from the base, the other will
> have to be overridden as well. 

Ok with me, thanks for working on this!

Paolo.