On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:12:28 -0600, "Ed Brey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's interesting that the people you read about don't think of '\n' conceptually as >an object. It's interesting that some people think they should :-) >Mis-use of endl doesn't seem to be adequet justification for a new >end-of-line specifier. However, a difference in behavior between '\n' >and endl does. Indeed. And there are obvious differences: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/17737 >>> - Why not other control functions, e.g. tab? >> >> Never thought of it. Anyway, the C and C++ standard libraries already >> have accommodations for line-based text processing, but not for other >> control characters. > >True. Presumably, then, the same subtle effects that would compel an >alternative to '\n' wouldn't do likewise for '\t'. Is that correct? The effect is exactly the same and there's nothing subtle about it. BTW, a non-flushing endl, as well as almost everything has been proposed here, are plain classics. Apart from the hundreds of newsgroup questions about '\n' vs. endl, I remember dozens of articles about array based stream buffers for instance. I don't have time to search for pointers right now (some of them were in CUJ) and, unfortunately, I don't think I would search them even if I could. Judging from the replies I got, seems like I've already wasted enough time with the review: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/17500 Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
