«

Hello,

I was recently told that there were <quote>a lot of things
wrong</quote> with the following program:

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
cout << '\a';
return 0;
}

I believe I should have written std::cout instead of cout.
Alternatively, I think I could have written:

using namespace std; // I can now write 'cout' and 'endl'

Second, I might need to write a newline to cout, otherwise the input
might be discarded, is that correct?

I'll make these two adjustments:

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
std::cout << '\a' << std::endl;
return 0;
}

Do you see anything wrong with this program as far as standard C++
is concerned? Did I really need to write endl to cout?

g++ -ansi -pedantic -Wall -W foo.cxx does not give any warning, but
I don't know how closely g++ adheres to the standard.

Grumble <> writes:

> Hello,
>
> I was recently told that there were <quote>a lot of things
> wrong</quote> with the following program:
>
> #include <iostream>
>
> int main()
> {
> cout << '\a';
> return 0;
> }
>
> I believe I should have written std::cout instead of
> cout. Alternatively, I think I could have written:
>
> using namespace std; // I can now write 'cout' and 'endl'

Yep, both alternatives are correct.

> Second, I might need to write a newline to cout, otherwise the input
> might be discarded, is that correct?

ITYM output instead of input - it doesn't get discarded, but the output
buffer will not necessarily be flushed, so it will look like it got
discarded.

>
> I'll make these two adjustments:
>
> #include <iostream>
>
> int main()
> {
> std::cout << '\a' << std::endl;
> return 0;
> }
>
> Do you see anything wrong with this program as far as standard C++ is
> concerned?

No, it's fine.

> Did I really need to write endl to cout?
>
> g++ -ansi -pedantic -Wall -W foo.cxx does not give any warning, but I
> don't know how closely g++ adheres to the standard.

If it's g++ 3.x, it's quite close.

HTH & kind regards
frank

--
Frank Schmitt
4SC AG phone: +49 89 700763-0
e-mail: frankNO DOT SPAMschmitt AT 4sc DOT com

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:44:09 +0100, Grumble <>
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I was recently told that there were <quote>a lot of things
>wrong</quote> with the following program:
>
>#include <iostream>
>
>int main()
>{
> cout << '\a';
> return 0;
>}
>
>I believe I should have written std::cout instead of cout.
>Alternatively, I think I could have written:
>
>using namespace std; // I can now write 'cout' and 'endl'
>
>Second, I might need to write a newline to cout, otherwise the input
>might be discarded, is that correct?
>
>I'll make these two adjustments:
>
>#include <iostream>
>
>int main()
>{
> std::cout << '\a' << std::endl;
> return 0;
>}

Well, I'd adjust it to:

#include <iostream>
#include <ostream> //required for non-members

int main()
{
std::cout << "\a\n";
return 0;
//cout implicitly flushed on program exit.
}

>Do you see anything wrong with this program as far as standard C++
>is concerned?

Yes - you need to include <ostream> to use endl (although most
compilers don't care if <iostream> is included).

> Did I really need to write endl to cout?

I think portable programs should finish stdoutput with a newline.

>g++ -ansi -pedantic -Wall -W foo.cxx does not give any warning, but
>I don't know how closely g++ adheres to the standard.

The latest version is pretty close.

Tom

C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

Grumble wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was recently told that there were <quote>a lot of things wrong</quote>
> with the following program:
>
> #include <iostream>
>
> int main()
> {
> cout << '\a';
> return 0;

That return statement is redundant (in C++).

As a purely academic nitpick that happened to come up here recently, you
might need to include <ostream> if you want to use std::endl and keep
the program portable.

> }
>
> I believe I should have written std::cout instead of cout.
> Alternatively, I think I could have written:
>
> using namespace std; // I can now write 'cout' and 'endl'
>
> Second, I might need to write a newline to cout, otherwise the input
> might be discarded, is that correct?
>
> I'll make these two adjustments:
>
> #include <iostream>
>
> int main()
> {
> std::cout << '\a' << std::endl;
> return 0;
> }
>
> Do you see anything wrong with this program as far as standard C++ is
> concerned? Did I really need to write endl to cout?
>
> g++ -ansi -pedantic -Wall -W foo.cxx does not give any warning, but I
> don't know how closely g++ adheres to the standard.
>

In article <>,
tom_usenet <> wrote:

> Well, I'd adjust it to:
>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <ostream> //required for non-members
>
> int main()
> {
> std::cout << "\a\n";
> return 0;
> //cout implicitly flushed on program exit.
> }

Just curious: Have you come across any implementation where the
<ostream> is actually required? There is considerable debate on whether
we really want to break every single C++ text which has shown the
traditional "HelloWorld" with only <iostream>.

Martin Sebor has done an admirable job of trying to bring this issue to
the committee. Unfortunately I don't think he has entirely succeeded
yet.

-Howard

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:29:26 GMT, Howard Hinnant
<> wrote:

>In article <>,
> tom_usenet <> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'd adjust it to:
>>
>> #include <iostream>
>> #include <ostream> //required for non-members
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> std::cout << "\a\n";
>> return 0;
>> //cout implicitly flushed on program exit.
>> }
>
>Just curious: Have you come across any implementation where the
><ostream> is actually required?

Nope, other than the Deathstation 9000. I thought that Dietmar's cxxrt
might be one, but it too includes <istream> and <ostream> in
<iostream>.

There is considerable debate on whether
>we really want to break every single C++ text which has shown the
>traditional "HelloWorld" with only <iostream>.

Many hello world programs seem to use std::endl for no good reason,
and I could certainly envision an implementation that doesn't expose
endl unless ostream is explicitly included. But not to include the
non-member operator<<'s (for char*) would be a bit crazed - hello
world output would become a random pointer value!

>Martin Sebor has done an admirable job of trying to bring this issue to
>the committee. Unfortunately I don't think he has entirely succeeded
>yet.

Good luck to him! It doesn't seem very important though, just ironic
that the canonical hello world program relies on unspecified
behaviour.

Tom

C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

In article <>,
tom_usenet <> wrote:

> Many hello world programs seem to use std::endl for no good reason

<nod><flush>
I<flush>
agree<flush>
100%!<flush>

> just ironic
> that the canonical hello world program relies on unspecified
> behaviour.

<chuckle>

-Howard

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:06:03 +0000, tom_usenet
<> wrote:

[snip]
>>Do you see anything wrong with this program as far as standard C++
>>is concerned?
>
>Yes - you need to include <ostream> to use endl (although most
>compilers don't care if <iostream> is included).

The header synopsis for <iostream> (section 27.3) declares std::cout
as "extern ostream cout;" in namespace std. std::cin is declared as
"extern istream cin;" Therefore, it must include both <istream> and
<ostream>, as far as I can tell.

>> Did I really need to write endl to cout?
>
>I think portable programs should finish stdoutput with a newline.
>

std::cin and std::cout should do whatever stdin and stdout are
supposed to do.

>>g++ -ansi -pedantic -Wall -W foo.cxx does not give any warning, but
>>I don't know how closely g++ adheres to the standard.
>
>The latest version is pretty close.
>
>Tom
>
>C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
>C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

--
Bob Hairgrove

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:20:48 GMT, wouldnt_you_like@to_know.com (Bob
Hairgrove) wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:06:03 +0000, tom_usenet
><> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>Do you see anything wrong with this program as far as standard C++
>>>is concerned?
>>
>>Yes - you need to include <ostream> to use endl (although most
>>compilers don't care if <iostream> is included).
>
>The header synopsis for <iostream> (section 27.3) declares std::cout
>as "extern ostream cout;" in namespace std. std::cin is declared as
>"extern istream cin;" Therefore, it must include both <istream> and
><ostream>, as far as I can tell.

Nope, it just needs complete definitions of basic_istream and
basic_ostream (and the typedefs istream and ostream). Imagine if
<istream> is just

#include <iosfwd>
#include <impl/istream_core.h>
#include <impl/istream_non_members.h>


and <iostream> is

#include <iosfwd>
#include <impl/istream_core.h>
extern istream cin;
extern wistream wcin;
//...

Now you don't get std::endl (or operator<<(ostream, char const*)!).

>
>>> Did I really need to write endl to cout?
>>
>>I think portable programs should finish stdoutput with a newline.
>>
>
>std::cin and std::cout should do whatever stdin and stdout are
>supposed to do.

Right, it is implementation defined (according to the C standard)
whether text streams (such as stdout) require a terminating newline
character.

Tom

C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html