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.