C++Talk.NET Forum Index C++Talk.NET
C++ language newsgroups
 
Archives   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

section number error wrt getline

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leor Zolman
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:56 pm    Post subject: section number error wrt getline Reply with quote



I've never posted in this group, so sorry that I don't know how to check
for whether or not this has been reported...

In section 21.3/5, the following bullet item appears:

As an argument to nonmember
functions swap() (21.3.7.Cool, operator>>() (21.3.7.9), and
getline() (21.3.7.9).

The section number given for getline() is the same as the preceding one for
oeprator>>(), so presumably wrong.
-leor

--
Leor Zolman --- BD Software --- www.bdsoft.com
On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl and Unix
C++ users: Download BD Software's free STL Error Message Decryptor at:
www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html

---
[ 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://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]

Back to top
Pete Becker
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:14 am    Post subject: Re: section number error wrt getline Reply with quote



Leor Zolman wrote:
Quote:

I've never posted in this group, so sorry that I don't know how to check
for whether or not this has been reported...

In section 21.3/5, the following bullet item appears:

As an argument to nonmember
functions swap() (21.3.7.Cool, operator>>() (21.3.7.9), and
getline() (21.3.7.9).

The section number given for getline() is the same as the preceding one for
oeprator>>(), so presumably wrong.

That's the danger in presumptions: they're sometimes wrong. <g>
Subclause 21.3.7.9 has the specifications for operator>>, operator<<,
and getline.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

---
[ 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://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]


Back to top
Leor Zolman
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:31 pm    Post subject: Re: section number error wrt getline Reply with quote



On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:14:51 +0000 (UTC), [email]petebecker (AT) acm (DOT) org[/email] (Pete Becker)
wrote:

Quote:
Leor Zolman wrote:

I've never posted in this group, so sorry that I don't know how to check
for whether or not this has been reported...

In section 21.3/5, the following bullet item appears:

As an argument to nonmember
functions swap() (21.3.7.Cool, operator>>() (21.3.7.9), and
getline() (21.3.7.9).

The section number given for getline() is the same as the preceding one for
oeprator>>(), so presumably wrong.

That's the danger in presumptions: they're sometimes wrong. <g
Subclause 21.3.7.9 has the specifications for operator>>, operator<<,
and getline.

Thanks Pete. Actually I didn't just presume without looking at 21.3.7.9,
but this is apparently one case where I should have taken the time to make
the font size bigger Wink
-leor


--
Leor Zolman --- BD Software --- www.bdsoft.com
On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl and Unix
C++ users: Download BD Software's free STL Error Message Decryptor at:
www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html

---
[ 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://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]


Back to top
Pete Becker
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:32 pm    Post subject: Re: section number error wrt getline Reply with quote

Leor Zolman wrote:
Quote:

Thanks Pete. Actually I didn't just presume without looking at 21.3.7.9,
but this is apparently one case where I should have taken the time to make
the font size bigger Wink

The library clause is hard to read in many places because the function
signatures tend to disappear. Future versions will fix this.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

---
[ 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://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]


Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group
SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.