Editorial review of Clause 27 [input.output] #891
Conversation
| @@ -5916,6 +5916,19 @@ | |||
| \postcondition | |||
| \tcode{rdbuf() == sb}. | |||
|
|
|||
| \indexlibrary{\idxcode{basic_ostream}!constructor}% | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@AlisdairM: Same question here, how come the synopsis does not list the move constructor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like a mis-application of http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1862.html after the Oxford 2007 meeting that no-one had noticed yet! I think the declaration in the class definition could be added editorially, given it was present in the original paper.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, and the other half of the mystery resolved! LWG 911 made these members protected, which is why they show up at the /end/ of the class definition - but the declarations are present and correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahhh - thanks! I added reference comments to the synopsis, too.
… consistent with [istream.cons], and add synopsis comments
This is @AlisdairM's work, just repackaged.