On 24/01/18 17:39 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
istreambuf_iterator sounds like an obvious coding mistake.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean we can terminate the process. It's still
valid C++, even though it's probably not wh
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:34:48 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
> On 24/01/2018 18:53, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:59 +0100
> > François Dumont wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
> >> istreambuf_iterator sounds l
On 24/01/2018 18:53, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:59 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
istreambuf_iterator sounds like an obvious coding mistake.
I propose it despite the stage 1 as it is just a ne
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:59 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
> istreambuf_iterator sounds like an obvious coding mistake.
>
> I propose it despite the stage 1 as it is just a new debug check,
> it doesn't impact
Hi
I'd like to propose this new debug check. Comparing with non-eos
istreambuf_iterator sounds like an obvious coding mistake.
I propose it despite the stage 1 as it is just a new debug check,
it doesn't impact the lib in normal mode.
Tested under Linux x86_64, ok to commit ?
F
