According to the April 1995 and Jan 1996 working papers, there is
a difference between constructing an ifstream from a file name,
and using method ifstream::open.

Assume that file nonexistent-file does not exist.
Consider the following fragment:

    std::ifstream f( "nonexistent-file" );

According to the drafts, f.good() is true after executing the fragment.
There are no words in the drafts that say otherwise.  But if I use the
following alternative:

    std::ifstream f;
    f.open( "nonexistent-file" );

then the drafts say that f.good() is false.

This inconsistency bothers me for two reasons:

    (a) Not setting the failbit seems gratuitously inconsistent with existing
        practice.  The old iostream distributed with Cfront sets the
  failbit for both cases so that programmers can write stuff like:

     ifstream f("can-of-worms") ;
     if( !f ) cout<<"cannot open can-of-worms";

 The draft breaks this documented idiom.

    (b) The whole point of having failbit is to report failures.
 Why report it in one case and not the other?

Is the inconsistency a feature of the standard?  Or an oversight by omission
that needs clarification?

Arch D. Robison       Kuck & Associates Inc.
robison@kai.com       1906 Fox Drive
217-356-2288        Champaign IL 61820
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]