On Sun, 7 Sept 2025 at 15:57, Jerome Saint-Martin <
jerome.saint-martin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> You’ve explained your interpretation three times, and I’ve clarified mine
> just as often.
>
If by "clarified" you mean "contradicted".

Jerome: it results in a stream that cannot read

also Jerome: I never claimed that ifstream doesn't work—only that some
flags seemed redundant.



> If you still insist on misrepresenting what I said — despite direct quotes
> and context — then perhaps it’s not me who’s wasting people’s time.
> I suggest you reread the thread with a bit more precision and a bit less
> presumption.
> The issue isn’t whether ifstream works — it’s whether the API should
> allow nonsensical flag combinations to compile without warning. That’s a
> design critique, not a misunderstanding.
> If that distinction escapes you, then I’ll gladly leave you to your echo
> chamber — Jérôme, who still believes APIs should make sense.
>
> ------------------------------
> *De:* Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]>
> *Envoyé:* Dimanche 07 septembre 2025 16:03
> *À:* Jerome Saint-Martin <jerome.saint-martin_at_[hidden]>
> *Cc:* C++ Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>; Matthieu Terrier <
> mterrier_at_[hidden]>; Caroline Pierron <caroline.pierron_at_[hidden]>;
> Madelenat, Christophe <christophe.madelenat_at_[hidden]>
> *Objet:* Re: [std-proposals] [Draft] Typed and Safer Stream API for C++
>
> No I *prefer* to explain the facts but when I've done that three times and
> you keep claiming the ifstream "doesn't work" then I assume you're just
> wasting people's time.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Sept 2025, 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.
> 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
>
>