From: Alexei Novakov (alexei_novakov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 11:20:21
> > <snip>
> I had a look. It looks interesting, however I couldn't compile it with
> I assume because of partial specialization you are using.
> I have compiled it with gcc 3.2, just to see how tests are working, and
> it worked just fine.
Thanks for trying. Portability has not really been addressed.
> Few comments about it. It is just my opinion, but I think its quite
> to redefine std::basic_string. There are many different implementation of
> and there is no guarantie, that your implementation will work with all of
It could be considerably portable if based on standard.
> Also I don't think that something like this will be accepted to boost if
> nothing else then for the incorrect namespace.
> IMHO it would be possible to provide the same functionality outside of std
Template specialization should be done only in the same namespace in which
the class was declared.
John Maddock gave some very valid critics to these classes, and I tend to
agree with him. I do not think that these classes will ever be accepted by
boost as they are now, but sub string notion is very important in string
oriented programs and algorithms and sooner or later this needs to be
addressed. Let then my sub_string along with John's substring be a starting
> Well these are just my opinions and other boosters may have different.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk