Re: [boost] Another attempt to refocus the format discussion

From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-12 11:39:34

On 2/11/02 2:19 PM, "Karl Nelson" <kenelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hopefully we can keep a similar syntax between boost::format and
> boost::legacy::format.  Though I would still really prefer to make
> a format which accepts printf and some extension like %{1:my_format_type}.

The question this would raise for me is why we need to add another dialect
to the printf world. For documentation and learning it might be nice to have
something that has very few differences. Better than printf in many ways,
without adding features other than those necessary to make it interoperate
well with C++.

My own thought is that once we have a compatible, safe printf
implementation, then we can dig into the "extensions to printf vs. entirely
new format language" issue with the proper "intellectual distance". We don't
really have to tackle all of this at once.

    -- Darin