From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 10:06:34
--- In boost_at_y..., Mickaël Pointier <mpointie_at_e...> wrote:
> >> (the only two arguments
> >> I've ever heard against this was that "printf" was more
> >> which is true only for old C coders, and that the manipulator
> >> approach was very verbose, but I could care less about that).
> > I'll second this!
> > I am not an old-school C coder, never had to learn printf and
rigoroulsy avoid having anything to do with it. My brief dealings
> found it far from intuitive and visually dense so I couldn't see
the wood for the trees.
> > I'm also against *unnecessary* verbosity, and some of the
iostream stuff may be too far the other way but at least it is clear.
> When it comes to trade-offs, I'll take clarity over terseness!
> > As someone who is observing the thread, rather than
participating, my observation is that I quite liked the  syntax,
and I would
> likely investigate any library based on that just for
the 'rightness' of the feel. I will avoid any library based on
> syntax. I'm not yet sure if this library is targetted at me to
begin with though, so take these last comments with a pinch of salt!
> Well, all oppinions are in the nature. Mine is opposite to yours.
> Personaly I appreciate the printf syntax because all the formating
> visualy located around the thing you want to format, and it has no
> on the remaining of the things to be formated.
> I really hate the c++ stream way of setting precision, width,
> because it's more a kind of state machine that keep settings until
You can define your own manipulators to "fix" this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk