RE: [boost] Re: string algorithms review

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-25 15:20:12

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Pavol Droba
| Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:31 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: Re: [boost] Re: string algorithms review

| > 2  The suffix should be _copy and _copyto.
|
| Why? Could you plese provide rationale for this.
|

Because it is shorter and  if the code is trim_copyto(s) is reads as though the
'to' means it goes to s.

(Of course, a rational language would specify in, out, or in&out but I won't
stir that hornets nest again!)

But actually I really rather like Rob Stewart's trimmed' suggestion.

Both

   std::string t(trimmed(s));

or even if t already exists (poor but what novice and ex-C programmers may do)

        t = trimmed(s)

seems to me to imply that nothing is done to s.

But to_uppered(s) or uppered is not so nice, but still just OK?

And what about concatentation t += trimmed(s);

and addition string full_name = trimmed(forename) + substr( trimmed(surname); ?

Since we already have protection against misuse,
this seems quite attractive to me.

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]