This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFC] Strive to prefer sbumpc() to snextc()?!?
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Pétur Runólfsson <peturr02 at ru dot is>
- Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:50:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Strive to prefer sbumpc() to snextc()?!?
- References: <07D05A69A3D0C14FAEA60C3ACE8E5564028F5633@mail.ru.is>
Pétur Runólfsson wrote:
Now, my question is: shall we actually strive to avoid snextc()??
It is currently possible to implement an unbuffered streambuf for input
by overloading uflow() and underflow(), but not pbackfail(), so I don't
think that using sungetc() or sputbackc() is a good idea.
Thanks for your message. Before discussing your other interesting
suggestions,
could you possibly explain in better detail this part. "Currently" means
in the
current standard? Why, exactly? And, more general, isn't true that
sbumpc() +
sungetc() has to be always equivalent to sgetc()?
Thanks again,
Paolo.