I'm starting to find your subborn attitude a bit annoying, particularly when you pull out stuff written from the standards to back up your (incorrect) reasoning.
You are telling us
that there are no more characters to be read in an open standard input stream.
We are telling you
-- and by we
, I mean people who have been eating and drinking and sleeping and pooping computers since they first frobbed a keyboard at least 25 or 30 years ago -- that your concept of "no more characters to be read" is WRONG
There most certainly ARE more characters to be read. They just haven't been input yet.
Your noobishness is showing when you start quibbling EOF vs Traits::eof() vs eofbit vs whatever. It's the same damn thing.
|How am I supposed to peek() into the input stream if I close the program or terminate the input stream?|
WTH?!! You've been spouting it at us for days.
If the program is closed/input stream is terminated (== same damn thing), you cannot peek()
, because it will return EOF and or your program isn't running any code to do the stupid peek, right?
|Also, how do you terminate the input stream?|
I already answered your question. Pay attention.
I've had enough of this topic, so bye now. Good luck with your circular reasoning and arrogant tell the world how logic works crap. If you want to run with the big boys, you might have to put away the little boy way of thinking.