Implement P3223R2 Making istream::ignore() Less Surprising by frederick-vs-ja · Pull Request #5604 · microsoft/STL (original) (raw)

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Conversation4 Commits1 Checks39 Files changed

Conversation

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters

[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})

@frederick-vs-ja

As a Defect Report against old standard modes. Fixes #5618.

As a result of DR-backing P3223R2, the new overload is templated, and thus this PR happens to "constrain the new overload to prevent ambiguities" and keeps in.ignore(100, -1L) well-formed.

@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja changed the titleImplement P3223R2 Making std::istream::ignore Less Surprising Implement P3223R2 Making std::istream::ignore() Less Surprising

Jun 23, 2025

@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja changed the titleImplement P3223R2 Making std::istream::ignore() Less Surprising Implement P3223R2 Making istream::ignore() Less Surprising

Jun 23, 2025

@frederick-vs-ja

@Zingam

@frederick-vs-ja (This is not a review. Just a couple of questions.) Was the paper voted in as DR? I guess not. My reading of the Standard is that resolving the ambiguity is not required is that so?
I made an attempt to implement the paper in libc++ but Windows is giving me troubles llvm/llvm-project#147007

@frederick-vs-ja

Was the paper voted in as DR? I guess not.

I guess not, either. But according to the paper issue I think it should be treated as a DR.

My reading of the Standard is that resolving the ambiguity is not required is that so?

Yes. In this PR the ambiguity is resolved "by accident", which is a consequence of backporting. I don't think the ambiguity resolution is disallowed, either.

StephanTLavavej

@StephanTLavavej

I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo - please notify me if any further changes are pushed.

@StephanTLavavej

🐱 😸 🐈

Labels