Standard C++ and old-C++ headers

[Guest]

Hi,

Does the C++ standard require implementations of C++ to contain any of
the "old" header files and their functionalities? (eg stdio.h,
iostream.h, fstream.h)

If so, which ones?

Thanks,

James McLaughlin.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Does the C++ standard require implementations of C++ to contain any of
the "old" header files and their functionalities? (eg stdio.h,
iostream.h, fstream.h)

If so, which ones?

<stdio.h> and other 'C90' headers, declarations for C Standard Library,
are supposed to be there. There are 18 of them:

<assert.h> <iso646.h> <setjmp.h> <stdio.h> <wchar.h>
<ctype.h> <limits.h> <signal.h> <stdlib.h> <wctype.h>
<errno.h> <locale.h> <stdarg.h> <string.h>
<float.h> <math.h> <stddef.h> <time.h>

Old string-based streams are there too, header <strstream>.

Both C90 headers and <strstream> are _deprecated_, IOW, are not guaranteed
to be in the future editions of the Standard.

No, neither <iostream.h> nor <fstream.h> (or anything of that sort) has
ever been a standard header.

Victor

 

[Ron Natalie]

Both C90 headers and <strstream> are _deprecated_, IOW, are not guaranteed
to be in the future editions of the Standard.

Nothing is guaranteed.

Deprecation was just a feel good operation of the standards committee
to placate the progressive element.

 

[John Harrison]

Nothing is guaranteed.

Deprecation was just a feel good operation of the standards committee
to placate the progressive element.

If, God forbid, the committee ever did remove strstream or C style headers
or even static at namespace level I don't think compiler writers would take
a blind bit of notice.

John

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Nothing is guaranteed.

Deprecation was just a feel good operation of the standards committee
to placate the progressive element.

And I suppose your posting a response to every of my messages is
just a feel good operation to placate your involvement here...

 

[James Aguilar]

And I suppose your posting a response to every of my messages is
just a feel good operation to placate your involvement here...

If you ask me (and you might not), the dude can post whenever and wherever
he wants. You're not by any means the only person he responds to, and of
all your messages in the last seven days (not including this one), he's only
responded to maybe four of the twenty or so. He hasn't actually said
anything _wrong_ yet, either, although some of what he's said has been iffy.

Eh, I just don't think that there's any call for personal attacks.

James

 

[Victor Bazarov]

[...]
Eh, I just don't think that there's any call for personal attacks.

Personal attacks? Is that like calling you a meddling moron or
telling you to bugger off? Hey, I am not saying that somebody
shouldn't post (did I say that?) or calling anybody anything. Yet.

I just think that everybody should practice what they preach.

 

[JKop]

And I suppose your posting a response to every of my messages is
just a feel good operation to placate your involvement here...

paranoia


-JKop

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

[...]
Eh, I just don't think that there's any call for personal attacks.

Personal attacks? Is that like calling you a meddling moron or
telling you to bugger off? Hey, I am not saying that somebody
shouldn't post (did I say that?) or calling anybody anything. Yet.

I just think that everybody should practice what they preach.

You have been a bit "testy" lately.
Why don't you take a break
and let some of these other aspiring C++ gurus
have first crack at answering questions for a while?