[v3] libstdc++/38678

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi again,
> Ok, now I found it, DR 165. In any case, I'm under the impression that
> the general issue should be discussed in a tad more detail,...
I just read carefully the discussion of 165 and I found it interesting:
Dietmar read 27.6.2.1/2 as requirements about *indirect* calls (e.g.,
sputn calling the xsputn virtual), thus not as something which has
immediate implications for public vs protected and friendship and so on.
Thus, I wonder if implementing the resolution of DR 165 implies already
that ostream::write is allowed to call sputn (and therefore any
overridden xsputn). Note that by default xsputn *is* explicitly
equivalent to a series of sputc, thus I don't see major inconsistencies.
See also where Dietmar discusses rdbuf->pubsync() vs the sync virtual...

Paolo.