[boost] Re: string_algo Formal Review

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-22 10:13:49

"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:4.3.2.7.2.20031022084437.031144a8_at_mailhost.esva.net...

> 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.

I think it might be all-right for a string library to focus on strings
instead of arbitrary containers.

There is an issue that would be nice to discuss, though. As an example, take
the function all(). Should it
be part of the string library or a more general algorithm library? Currently
it is also implemented
in the sequence_algo part of the sandbox. My point is where should we draw
the line between
a string algorithm and a generic algorithm? IMO, all() should not be part of
a string library, but other cases
might not be so clear cut.

Thorsten