[boost] Re: string algorithms review

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-23 03:20:39

Pavol Droba wrote:
> Whats is the problem with the current proposal? It declares three variants for each
> algorithm:
> 
> 1. _copy version, the result is copied to an output iterator
>    - This variant, has least requirement on the input. 
>    - It is semantical equivalent of algorithms in STL
> 	- has no side effects

Don't know if it's worth the effort. This is probably behind the line 
I'd draw for a string-algorithm-library, but it doesn't hurt if it's there.

> 2. _copy version, the result is a copy of the input
>    - Allows chaining
>    - Has more requirements on the input-type, because it is used for result
> 	- has no side effects
> 
> 3. inplace version. Input is modified
> 	- optimized implementation
>    - returns void, to avoid a possibiliy of missuse
> 	- Has strongest requiremnts on the input type

Having the inplace version returning void is OK for me, although I lost 
a bit track of this thread since I missed the fact that this is now your 
"official" current proposal :)

 From a convenience POV, I would still prefer the copy-version to not 
have a suffix, but that's probably just a matter of taste. My main 
concern was safe use which is now addressed. Thanks.

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de