On Sun, 7 Sept 2025 at 13:07, Jerome Saint-Martin <
jerome.saint-martin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I see you prefer personal attacks over technical discussion. I never
> claimed that ifstream doesn't work—only that some flags seemed redundant.
>
This is a lie. Don't try to play victim and lie about what you said, I have
the emails.

You said (in private mail off-list):

"The issue is that the API allows this mode combination (ifstream with
ios::out) to compile, even though it results in a stream that cannot read —
which defeats the purpose of using ifstream. "

i.e. you explicitly said "results in a stream that cannot read", despite me
already explaining that it's not true and providing a standard reference.
So much for "I never claimed that ifstream doesn't work - only that some
flags seemed redundant". You are liying.

Then in a later off-list mail you said:

"Unlike the current design, the API proposed wouldn’t require developers to
repeat themselves with ios::in when using ifstream. The type already
implies the mode — no need to chant it twice."

Despite me already explaining that you don't need to say it twice, because
ios::in is implied for ifstream.



> If you're interested in discussing the actual topic, I'm open to it.
> Otherwise, I'm happy to leave you the exclusive rights to trolling
>

I tried to discuss it, and you repeatedly failed to understand what I'd
written then publicly lied about what you said. That's not discussing the
topic.

I tried to explain it in good faith and you're lying and claiming I'm
making personal attacks.