Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > std::noskipws: #include<ios> or #include<iomanip>?

Reply
Thread Tools

std::noskipws: #include<ios> or #include<iomanip>?

 
 
Bernd Gaertner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2008
Dear experts,

according to the standard, manipulators like noskipws are declared in
the header ios ([lib.iostreams.base]). But when I look at code that is
around, I usually see #include<iomanip> being used. What is the correct
include, and why?

Thanks in advance for your time!

Best regards,
Bernd.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Salt_Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2008
On Nov 17, 11:20 am, Bernd Gaertner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Dear experts,
>
> according to the standard, manipulators like noskipws are declared in
> the header ios ([lib.iostreams.base]). But when I look at code that is
> around, I usually see #include<iomanip> being used. What is the correct
> include, and why?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time!
>
> Best regards,
> Bernd.


The header <iomanip> typically has member functions resetiosflags,
setiosflags, setbase, setfill, setprecision and setw. So it all
depends what you are doing.

Assuming you are using std::cout by including <iostream>, and since
iostream derives from istream/ostream which derive from ios (a diamond
hierarchy), noskipws doesn't need an include <iomanip> unless you plan
to use the set/reset members mentioned above.

You probably saw example code with include <iomanip> mainly because
the subject at hand was manipulation of streams.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2008
On Nov 17, 5:20 pm, Bernd Gaertner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> according to the standard, manipulators like noskipws are
> declared in the header ios ([lib.iostreams.base]). But when I
> look at code that is around, I usually see #include<iomanip>
> being used. What is the correct include, and why?


It's rather arbitrary from a user point of view, but
manipulators which require an argument are declared in
<iomanip>, and those that don't are declared in <ios>. (There
are also a few, like endl, which only work on an ostream, and
are declared in <ostream>.) The reason behind this distinction
is mainly one of implementation; a manipulator which takes an
argument requires an additional type, which must be defined; if
you only include <ios>, you don't get a definition these types.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:(E-Mail Removed)
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernd Gaertner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2008
Salt_Peter wrote:
> Assuming you are using std::cout by including <iostream>, and since
> iostream derives from istream/ostream which derive from ios (a diamond
> hierarchy), noskipws doesn't need an include <iomanip> unless you plan
> to use the set/reset members mentioned above.


I'm doing std::cin >> std::noskipws, and I ran across a platform where
#include<iostream> doesn't suffice to do this. With an additional
#include<ios> it worked. But according to what you write above, ios
should be included with iostream, meaning that the platform is buggy. Or
is it not allowed to infer this from the aforementioned diamond hierarchy?

Thanks,
Bernd.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernd Gaertner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2008
James Kanze wrote:
> It's rather arbitrary from a user point of view, but
> manipulators which require an argument are declared in
> <iomanip>, and those that don't are declared in <ios>.


Thanks. This seems to mean that for example the following code (you find
many similar things on the web) actually uses the wrong include:

#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip> // for noskipws - (no skip whitespace)

char s;

int main()
{
std::cin >> std::noskipws;
while (std::cin >> s)
{
std::cout << s;
}
return 0;
}

Best,
Bernd.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bo Persson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2008
Bernd Gaertner wrote:
> Salt_Peter wrote:
>> Assuming you are using std::cout by including <iostream>, and since
>> iostream derives from istream/ostream which derive from ios (a
>> diamond hierarchy), noskipws doesn't need an include <iomanip>
>> unless you plan to use the set/reset members mentioned above.

>
> I'm doing std::cin >> std::noskipws, and I ran across a platform
> where #include<iostream> doesn't suffice to do this. With an
> additional #include<ios> it worked. But according to what you write
> above, ios should be included with iostream, meaning that the
> platform is buggy. Or is it not allowed to infer this from the
> aforementioned diamond hierarchy?


The current standard does not specify which headers should be included
by <iostream>, so it is not a bug. Technically it is enough to include
<iosfwd> to be able to declare (but not define) the streams.


Bo Persson


 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kanze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2008
On Nov 18, 6:29*pm, Bernd Gaertner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> James Kanze wrote:
> > It's rather arbitrary from a user point of view, but
> > manipulators which require an argument are declared in
> > <iomanip>, and those that don't are declared in <ios>.


> Thanks. This seems to mean that for example the following code
> (you find many similar things on the web) actually uses the
> wrong include:


> #include <iostream>
> #include <iomanip> * *// for noskipws - (no skip whitespace)


> char s;


> int main()
> {
> * * * * std::cin >> std::noskipws;
> * * * * while (std::cin >> s)
> * * * * {
> * * * * * * * * std::cout << s;
> * * * * }
> * * * * return 0;
> }


Well, the comment is wrong, and the include of <iomanip> isn't
necessary here. But it doesn't hurt, and I can imagine some
house rules just saying to include it anytime you use a
manipulator, rather than having the developers have to learn the
detailed rule; it doesn't hurt. (Of course, <ios> will be
included indirectly by <iostream>, so there's no risk of the
manipulator not being defined.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:(E-Mail Removed)
Conseils en informatique oriente objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Smard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments