On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:14:51 +0000 (UTC), petebecker@acm.org (Pete Becker)
wrote:

>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() (21.3.7.8), 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 ;-)
 -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                       ]

Leor Zolman wrote:
>
> 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 ;-)

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                       ]

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() (21.3.7.8), 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                       ]

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() (21.3.7.8), 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                       ]