Re: [v3] PR 10975

[Jerry Quinn <jlquinn at optonline dot net>]

Paolo Carlini writes:
 > Ok, now I see: basically, from the implementation point of view, the body of
 > basic_stringbuf::seekoff() doesn't need to be protected from capacity() 
 > == 0,
 > because it's already able to deal with that case: seeking to pos_type(0)
 > succeeds, seeking to pos_type(0) automatically fails, as should be. And in
 > this way we are consistent with basic_filebuf. Good.
 > 
 > Now, one remaining doubt: what about basic_stringbuf::seekpos? Shouldn't we
 > remove the check on _M_string.capacity() from there too?

Actually, my patch fixes seekpos as well :-)

Given that stringstreams don't provide a direct interface ala open()
to explicitly set the buffer string after construction would be an
argument to me that stringstreams should always be considered open.

And given that the standard is ambiguous about it at the moment, why
not push towards a more sensible solution?

Jerry