Re: [boost] string_algo Formal Review

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-22 07:57:42

At 02:23 AM 10/22/2003, Pavol Droba wrote:

 >...
 >I will and it will be accompanied by a specification in docs. Question 
is,
 >if I should do it during the review, or it would be enough to do it
 >afterwards?

There isn't really enough time left during the review.

 >...
 >I have used C++ syntax, but I haven't mind it as a piece of code. Try to
 >look at it as table of required feature.

That's the problem I'm having with the library's specification. Far too 
much has to be imagined. Hopefully the final docs will contain a real 
requirements table.

 > ...
 >Well, the Sequence is sufficient model for all algorithms in string_algo
 >library, where mutable operations are need.
 >Currently I don't see a major benefit in a refinement of this concept.

Short term that's probably OK. Long term users may want to use certain 
algorithms with containers which don't full meet the Sequence requirement. 
Why shouldn't some of the algorithms work on an Associative container for 
example? Or a home-made container which supports insert but not erase or 
visa versa.

 >...
 >So let me sumarize the requirements for the container arguments:
 >
 >1. for non-result type container arguments (see my previous posts)
 >InputContainerConcept is required.
 >2. For all others SequenceConcept is required.
 >
 >There are some exceptions to point 2, but given the fact, that the
 >requirements are lower, it is safe
 >to assume the SequenceConcept as requirement.

Minor point: since "SequenceConcept" refers to what the Standard Library 
calls a "Sequence", maybe it would be better not to tack the word "Concept" 
on the end of these requirement names.

--Beman