By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
448,678 Members | 1,184 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 448,678 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Standard C++ and old-C++ headers

P: n/a
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.
Jul 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
8 Replies


P: n/a
ze********************@yahoo.com wrote:
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
Jul 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
Victor Bazarov wrote:

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.
Jul 22 '05 #3

P: n/a

"Ron Natalie" <ro*@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:41***********************@news.newshosting.co m...
Victor Bazarov wrote:

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.


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
Jul 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
Ron Natalie wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:

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.


And I suppose your posting a response to every of my messages is
just a feel good operation to placate your involvement here...
Jul 22 '05 #5

P: n/a

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@comAcast.net> wrote in message
news:5V****************@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.v erio.net...

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
Jul 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
James Aguilar wrote:
[...]
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.
Jul 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
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
Jul 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
Victor Bazarov wrote:
James Aguilar wrote:
[...]
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?
Jul 22 '05 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.