From 2156841426916245192
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a4a0f2ad834f7335
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
From: ncm@nospam.cantrip.org (Nathan Myers)
Subject: Re: [io]fstreams ctors
Date: 1998/02/05
Message-ID: <6bblks$qpq$1@shell7.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 322347483
Sender: ncm@best.com
References: <34CF78BF.5718@pratique.fr> <6b2f7c$uqj@marianna.psu.edu> <6b8ps5$ll5$1@shell7.ba.best.com> <34D88971.167EB0E7@pratique.fr>
Originator: clamage@taumet
X-UID: 0000000001
X-Status: $$$$
Organization: http://www.cantrip.org/
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++


Valentin Bonnard  <bonnardv@pratique.fr> wrote:
>Nathan Myers wrote:
>> A little thought will reveal a way to avoid
>> any problems of overloading with existing constructors.
>
>The implementation can define a type: 
>
>struct wchar_t_construction {};
>filebuf::filebuf (const wchar_t*, wchar_t_construction);
>
>But it would make the code completly unportable between 
>implementations which support that (as they would have 
>a different syntax for the same semantic: open a file).

That's the nature of extensions.  If enough different
implementors choose the same interface you get a degree
of portability.

>The intent of the standard is:
>(1) to standardise ?
>(2) to support wchar_t ?
>(3) to provide the minimum implementable on all systems ?
>
>I think the answer is (1) and (2), not (3). How do you 
>implement wcout under DOS ?

The intent of the standard is the intent of the members of
the standard committee.  Nobody proposed constructors from
wstring (or string, for that matter).  Maybe at the next
round somebody will propose one or other or both.

Nathan Myers
ncm@nospam.cantrip.org  http://www.cantrip.org/



[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]