Boost logo

Boost :

From: Brey, Edward D (EdwardDBrey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 14:10:54

> From: bill_kempf [mailto:williamkempf_at_[hidden]]
> At least in my experience. I'm not steadfast against including
> syntax to allow it in the string, but I doubt I'd ever use it and
> think it's important that the design not require it. In other words,
> like I said before (though maybe was clear), I think including printf
> type specifiers is a huge mistake, and including other formatting
> specifications should be considered carefully. In most cases the
> only thing I find missing is positional parameters. Otherwise
> iostreams outshine printf and all it's warts in every possible way
> (well, performance is another issue, but hopefully implementers will
> find a way to fix this as well).

Now hold on just a minute. We just had a discussion about the tradeoff
involving spatial locality differences between a placeholder approach (a la
printf) and a fragmented context approach (a la iostreams). One side of
that tradeoff is that the placeholder approach provides closer proximity to
the context on either side of a placeholder, making it easier, for instance
to read a sentence that values will be substituted into. In this respect
printf "outshines" iostream.

May I ask that we please try to refrain from such blanket statements? If a
contention has been asserted which is erroneous, by all means refute it,
using solid reasoning. Any unrefuted contention should be factored into
subsequent discussion; otherwise, we end up going in circles.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at