Re: [boost] rough cut of string algorithms library

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 11:13:10

At 05:57 AM 6/28/2001, Albrecht Fritzsche wrote:
 >Darin Adler wrote:
 >>
 >> Beman suggested a simple string algorithms library. Some argued that
 >> it was redundant with the standard library and not needed. But Beman
 >> encouraged me to give it a shot anyway.
 >
 >Sorry if I missed something - why the string algorithms but not the
 >string class itself?
 >
 >For me, at least, is the (lacking) efficiency of the string class the
 >real problem, not the algorithms working on it. I mean, using things
 >like the Small String Optimization, policies, etc.. it should be
 >possible to build a better string class which is configurable for
 >different uses and much more efficient than the string class that
 >most libraries offer.
 >
 >But maybe you are already working on that?

Boost tends to concentrate on pure extensions to the standard library 
rather than so-called impure extensions that would change the existing 
standard library.

Of course a new_string class (or rope or whatever) could be done as a pure 
extension, but then the issue of third-party library interoperability would 
have to be addressed.

Also, be aware that a highly configurable string class, with more policies, 
traits, etc. would be seen as "better" by some but decidedly "worse" by 
others, who are concerned that parameterization discourages users.  I think 
the rule-of-thumb for user-supplied template parameters might be something 
like:

     You get one simple template parameter like T or N for free, and
     then every addition parameter halves the number of users.

All that should not discourage you from trying to design a new string 
library.  The performance working group of the standards committee has 
suggested that a non-modifiable (or maybe it was fixed-length - I'm not 
part of that group and don't know the details) string would serve many 
needs and yet be more efficient.  I thing someone on Boost was talking 
about such a string not too long ago.

Cheers,

--Beman