This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
RE: [RFC] Doubts about our istream::ignore
- From: "Damour, James A" <James dot Damour at dfa dot state dot ny dot us>
- To: "Paolo Carlini" <pcarlini at suse dot de>,"Nathan Myers" <ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org>
- Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:04:06 -0400
- Subject: RE: [RFC] Doubts about our istream::ignore
Could you please add a comment that specifies the test that you are not
going to add, and why you're not going to add it? I think that it would
be helpful to future generations of developers to know why we believe
that, in this case, libstdc++ can meet the specs without having code to
handle this case.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paolo Carlini [mailto:pcarlini@suse.de]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:35 AM
To: Nathan Myers
Cc: libstdc++
Subject: Re: [RFC] Doubts about our istream::ignore
Nathan Myers wrote:
>> isn't this basically a NOP, or the headache that I have got since
>> this morning is obfuscating my mind?
>
> I agree.
Ok, I will remove that line.
> I agree.
>
> Of course, now that streamsize is 64 bits, it would take longer than
> the remaining lifetime of the universe (or, perhaps, the remaining
> fossil
> fuels) to get there. (That assumes Moore's law will get used up, too.)
:) right...
ok, therefore, instead of unnecessarily complicating that code, I will
not change it, for now: when we'll be able to store data in single
atoms, we can revisit the issue... without changing the ABI! ;) ;)
Let's actually improve the performance of ignore...
Thanks!
Paolo.