On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: > >> And, as a side note, highly formatted output generally is not >> much better than printf. For any text that needs to be localized, >> I recommend that we stick with what we have. > > I agree with Lawrence that for texts that need localization, what > we currently have is probably much better deployed. On the other hand, for > debugging routines and in-memory formatting, IOStreams are > very handy.
I'm not deeply against iostreams, but I don't see that they bring us any significant advantages over what we already have. We already have typed check formatting, we can already write to a memory buffer. It took a lot of work to get there, but that work has been done. It's quite unlikely that we would ever want to use iostreams for user-visible compiler output, because there is no straightforward support for localization. So we are only talking about dump files and debug output. What parts of the compiler would be clearly better if we used iostreams? Ian
