Silently passing wrong input for good one

[Martin Sebor]

Paolo Carlini wrote:
[...]
> But then we have a defect in the standard, because according to the
> standard Stage2 goes ahead according to the grammar, on input_iterators,
> and only at the end, Stage 3 kicks in with the role of scanf...

Maybe you and I can work on new wording for stage 2 in Berlin? ;-)
(I promised to provide wording for issue 23 long time ago, so this
might be a good opportunity for me to make good on it.)

[...]
> ... basically, the standard, with such separation in Stages (first,
> grammar on input_iterators, then scanf), demands an overall behavior
> which is identical to that of glibc.
> 
> I don't think there is much point in diverging from glibc without such a
> clarification in the C++ standard.

I'll leave that up to you :)

Martin