Re: [Patch] Reimplement (and split) istream::ignore

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

> This looks fine Paolo with this one bit:
>
> >        *  NB: Conformingly, we provide three overloads, instead of the single
> > +        *  function (with defaults) mandated by the Standard: this leads to a
> > +        *  better performing implementation.
> >    
> Should be: 
>
> > +        *  NB: Provide three overloads, instead of the single
> > +        *  function (with defaults) mandated by the Standard: this leads to a
> > +        *  better performing implementation, while still conforming to the standard.
> >    
Yes, thanks for this correction to my (often poor) english: indeed, that 
sentence didn't "sound"
quite right...

> You might also want to detail, in an abbreviated summary, why it's a
> "better performing implementation."
>  
Ok, I will.

Paolo.