From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-23 17:28:23
> I don't care for this at all. Note that none of the current C++ types in
> the standard provide any sort of string conversions. They rely on iostreams
> for this, and I think that's appropriate. It provides the most flexibility
Perhaps. It doesn't support cases where you read a text file line by line
into a string and then dole out the parts.
> and insures a uniform way to obtain string representations. Providing both
So I take it you aren't going to be in favor of the to_string addition to
the conversions library?
> The only thing I see wrong with "keeping the core of the code documentation
> inline" is that the Boost libraries are static in nature. You can't expect
> users to generate the documentation, and I think it's also unlikely that the
> release procedure will be changed to generate the documentation for you.
I wouldn't expect either.
> So, by keeping the code inline you're committing yourself to producing the
> static documentation every time the inline documentation is made. If you
> can live with that then great. I do understand the appeal of keeping the
> documentation in the code.
No problem -- you can be assured that only one command will be required
on my part :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk