Re: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks

[François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>]

On 16/11/2017 12:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16/11/17 10:57 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
> > > François Dumont <frs.dumont@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > >     Any final decision regarding this patch ?
> > > >
> > > > François
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00036.html
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00035.html
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00037.html
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00034.html
> >
> > It would be helpful if you two could collaborate and come up with a
> > good solution, or at least discuss the pros and cons, instead of just
> > sending competing patches.
>
>
> Let me be more clear: I'm not going to review further patches in this
> area while you two are proposing different alternatives, without
> commenting on each other's approach.
>
> If you think your solution is better than François's solution, you
> should explain why, not just send a different patch. If François
> thinks his solution is better than yours, he should state why, not
> just send a different patch.
>
> I don't have time to infer all that from just your patches, so I'm not
> going to bother.
Proposing to revert my patch doesn't sound to me like a friendly action 
to start a collaboration.

My only concern has always been the Debug mode impact which is now fixed.

I already said that I disagree with Petr's main goal to keep eof 
iterator linked to the underlying stream. So current implementation is 
just fine to me and I'll let Petr argument for any change. @Jonathan, 
You can ignore my last request to remove mutable keywork on _M_sbuf.

François