In message <lB5Ha.11929$KF1.273430@amstwist00>, Terje Sletteb� 
<tslettebo@chello.no.nospam> writes
> > // These templates provide safe input for any type that supports
> > operator>>
> > // 1) from console with prompt
> >
> >         template<typename in_type>
> >         in_type read(std::string const & prompt, int max_tries = 3){
> >                 in_type temp;
>
>I thought your point was that you avoided the use of uninitialised
>variables? However, that still happens, here.
>
>So maybe your point was that you have a function for providing safe
>input using streams? (As we've discussed at the ACCU begin-cpp mailing
>list)

For some reason I elided my thoughts when I transferred them to the 
keyboard. I was thinking more in terms of an analogy with not having new 
used unwrapped in a class whose dtor  calls the corresponding delete.

I meant to write:

Any half-way competent programmer has a mechanism to ensure that:

1) variables can support an operator >> (istream, T) can always be 
initialised except

2) within a function that handles failure of the call to operator>>

I agree that what I wrote was far from this.

I think that seeing cin >> in top level code sends a similar message to 
seeing delete at the same level, neither belongs at that level though 
both can be useful when properly encapsulated.


-- 
ACCU Spring Conference 2003 April 2-5
The Conference you should not have missed
ACCU Spring Conference 2004 Late April
Francis Glassborow      ACCU


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]