Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:28:36 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Dennis Yelle <dennis51 AT jps DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Challenge for C++ programmers:
In-Reply-To: <372673AA.9D1E8A1C@jps.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990428182614.28722D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Dennis Yelle wrote:

> Here is the relevant line from the header file:
>     int in_avail() { return _IO_read_end - _IO_read_ptr; }
> 
> I guess that is not EXACTLY useless, but it is far from
> what I had hoped for.

Thanks for looking this up.

The question is now: what does the C++ standard say about in_avail?  If 
the above does exactly what the standard says, then obviously in_avail is 
not a soluion to this problem.  But if it *should* be a solution, then we 
could easily fix it.