Justin Findlay <farquharsoncraig@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Why doesn't ifstream overload operator>> for const
> char * types so that one could do this:
>
> string keep_this_string;
> ifstream fin( "fin.txt" );
> while ( fin )
> {
> fin >> "Ignore this string everywhere it occurs" >>
> keep_this_string >> "Ignore something else";
I am not at sure I understand. The primary stream use of the left hand
argument of operator>> is a place to write the extracted data
to. The secondary use is a manipulator which changes the
formatting state of the stream. You seem to be suggesting a kind
of operator>> which instead uses the right hand side as an
indicator of what to ignore. This is not consistent with either
the primary or secondary existing operator>> idioms. My second
objection is that your notion seems fragile; IMO it is rare for a
file format to both require that a piece of text exactly match a
specific string, and then ignore it.
Probably no-one thought of it. In any case, it needs to be better
explained, and perhaps even then it would be deemed too
confusing. I had to read your several times to understand what
you meant - assuming I understand it now.
> use_it( keep_this_string.c_str() );
> }
>
> How about an istream member getline() that returns a
> formatted string:
>
> istringstream iline;
> iline.str( fin.getline() );
> iline >> "Ignore this string everywhere it occurs" >>
> keep_this_string >> "Ignore something else";
> use_it( keep_this_string.c_str() );
>
> or even just:
>
> string ilinestr;
> fin.getline( ilinestr );
[snip]
This suggestion I do not understand at all.
