Re: [RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbufferedunderflow?

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>]

Nathan Myers wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 12:41:12AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>  
>
> > Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> > > .. however, I like even more the below, slightly simpler and which 
> > > definitely keeps pbackfail working correctly (I will prepare a 
> > > testcase for this, anyway). 
> > >      
> > Actually, I believe a slight change is needed for pbackfail, in order to
> > correctly return to the normal unbuffered situation after a sequence
> > sgetc - putback.
> >    
> This looks much better.  I haven't analyzed it in detail yet, but
> nothing in here sets off alarm bells for me.
Thanks Nathan for your feedback. I will consider it in _detail_ later 
today and tomorrow
when I will refine the patch, also adding some testcases. In any case 
will _not_ commit without yours
and Benjamin's ok.

In my opinion, anyway, we are still not there: bad things happens with 
my latest proposal
for mixes of seeks, putbackc, sgetc.

Honestly, right now, my _first_  proposal, using explicitly 
_M_create_pback (like Benjamin's) with
a due additional tweak to pbackfail (it has to consider the pback empty 
if it actually contains the sgetc()
char) seems closer to the right thing.

More tomorrow...
Paolo.