[boost] Re: string algorithms review

From: Ross MacGregor (ross__macgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-23 03:51:32

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> we're trying to guard our selves from a algorithm explosion problem. 

I see your point. Now that I look at the chaining aspect, I don't see a 
great need for it anyway.

What I understand is that the original inplace algorithms returned a 
reference so that something like this would be possible:

A) func( trim(to_upper(s)) );

This saves space and is elegant but it is also a little ambiguous too 
(is s modified?). This can lead to unpleasant side effects, so an 
explicit variant is being considered:

B) func( trim_inplace(to_upper_inplace(s)) );

This is a much less ambiguous operation, but I think I would be just as 
happy learning the single inplace set and writing the operation as:

to_upper(s);
trim(s);
func(s);

Did I miss a more important aspect of chaining?

 > As for the chaining, then maybe we need some device that allows of to 
call n
 > function operation on eachother's result:
 >
 > string s:
 > chain( &trim, &to_upper, s );
 >
 > ?
 >
 > Thorsten

Then I could write my little code snippit as:

chain( &trim, &to_upper, s );
func(s);

Correct? This would perhaps be less error prone without the duplicate 
prameters, but I don't find it easier to read.