[RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbuffered underflow?

[Paolo Carlini]

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.