[ostream.manip] Introduce SYNCBUF to detect basic_syncbuf LWG 3501 #4300
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This attempts to address the problem of
Allocator
being mentioned inthe function descriptions without being defined. We cannot say that
because firstly, that type is not defined, and secondly
os.rdbuf()
isa
basic_streambuf<charT, traits>*
and not any other type.By introducing SYNCBUF we can define the manipulators properly, by
talking about a base class subobject rather than "is a".
This introduces an apparently normative change that the syncbuf type
must not use a program-defined specialization. Without that additional
restriction the implementation suggested by the note doesn't work,
because program-defined specializations cannot derive from the
intermediate base class, and therefore cannot be detected by SYNCBUF.