RE: [boost] Re: reminder about Date/Time formal review

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 :-)

Jeff