Re: Standard header format.

[Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 05:16:45 -0400, "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 06 June 2004 02:18, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com> writes:
>> | There are many C++ programmers who have suggested to me the best way
>> | to learn  what the standard headers probide is to look a them.
>>
>> That definitely is not the best way.  It is one of the worst way.
>
> If there are actually header files in the traditional sense that look like 
> this:
>
> //http://www.itga.com.au/~gnb/wp/cd2/lib-strings.html
> //http://www.itga.com.au/~gnb/wp/cd2/
>   struct
>        char_traits<char>
>   namespace std {
>     template<>
>     struct char_traits<char> {
>       typedef char        char_type;
>       typedef int         int_type;
>       typedef streamoff   off_type;
>       typedef streampos   pos_type;
>       typedef mbstate_t   state_type;
>
>       static void assign(char_type& c1, const char_type& c2);
>       static bool eq(const char_type& c1, const char_type& c2);
>       static bool lt(const char_type& c1, const char_type& c2);
>
>       static int compare(const char_type* s1, const char_type* s2, size_t n);
>       static size_t length(const char_type* s);
>       static const char_type* find(const char_type* s, int n,
>                                    const char_type& a);
>       static char_type* move(char_type* s1, const char_type* s2, size_t n);
>       static char_type* copy(char_type* s1, const char_type* s2, size_t n);
>       static char_type* assign(char_type* s, size_t n, char_type a);
>
>       static int_type not_eof(const int_type& c);
>       static char_type to_char_type(const int_type& c);
>       static int_type to_int_type(const char_type& c);
>       static bool eq_int_type(const int_type& c1, const int_type& c2);
>       static state_type get_state(pos_type pos);
>       static int_type eof();
>     };
>   }

If people want something that looks like that, there's the standard; we
don't need our implementation to look like it as well.  It seems to me that
you're suggesting that we do a lot of work for a very small payoff.  The
complexity of the standard library makes what you are asking for rather
impractical.

> for example, then looking at the "standard headers" would be a worthwhile 
> means of determining what is provided by the Standard Library. I believe the 
> people who have suggested looking at the Standard Headers were expecting me 
> to find them in the form presented above.  I am not saying they /should/ 
> expect that.  I'm saying they /do/ expect that.

I haven't encountered this expectation before.  What I expect to find in
the libstdc++ headers is implementation details.

Jason