On Mon, 4 Sept 2023, 02:31 unlvsur unlvsur via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Absolutely, QtCore! I contend that the root of this predicament can be
> traced back to the calamity that is iostream. Why is there a need for Qt to
> reinvent QFile? The core issue lies in the undeniable fact that iostream
> has proven itself to be a resounding failure, forcing people to actively
> seek out alternatives.
>
>
>
> Here's the crux of the matter: It appears nigh impossible to introduce any
> new functionality without being ensnared by iostream's inherent
> shortcomings. Take, for instance, the endeavor to incorporate a "linear
> algebra" library. It inevitably leads to the tangled web of operator
> overloading for iostreams, a necessity just to output your matrix.
> Additionally, I require this linear algebra to be freestanding; otherwise,
> it becomes utterly unusable. Clearly, iostream renders the situation
> untenable for freestanding applications.
>

You do like to talk in absolutes, even when you're out of your depth and
wrong.

Where in P1673 or P1385 (or P1166 or P1891) does it say the proposal
depends on iostreams? Where are the operator overloads for outputting a
matrix described? Can you explain why that iostreams functionality couldn't
be omitted for freestanding implementations, leaving the rest supported,
just like we did for the iostream-dependent parts of <iterator> and
<ranges>? Are you just spouting rubbish without understanding the topic
properly, as I've seen several times in the past whenever you wade in
somewhere and start attacking people?

There is an issue with <random> requiring iostreams, but the same
"partially freestanding" principle applies there, it could all be optional.
Somebody just needs to propose it and do the work to get it approved for
the standard. That doesn't happen by being a blight on the C++ community
and attacking the people who are actually trying to do that.




>
> My proposal stands: We should embrace an entirely new IO library, one
> poised to supersede the current IO facilities. It's high time we consigned
> std::locale, iostream, ctype.h, format, charconv, filesystem, and their ilk
> to obsolescence. Failure to do so will merely perpetuate the complications
> that accompany each new feature addition.
>

That's not a proposal. In fact, nothing you ever suggest is a proposal,
just ranting. You have very little credibility on any C++ topic as far as
I'm concerned.