From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-02 00:47:35
"Pavol Droba" <droba_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:08AM -1000, David Abrahams wrote:
> > Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > I would really, really like to see a use case which isn't handled more
> > cleanly and just as easily with an iterator-based "find" algorithm.
> > I think it's important not to shove functionality into a library
> > before we can prove its usefulness. It's easy to add functionality
> > later but it's very hard to remove it once a library is out.
It's not that hard, is it?
How would your find algorithm look like?
> There is one example, which alway hovers in my mind: Table manipulations.
> You might want to make some tranformation in the second column for
> Problematic algorithm is not find_nth(). That one is realy covered by
> find_iterator. But what about erase_nth and replace_nth?
> Possible suggestion:
> string str1="the text is text";
> find_iterator it=make_find_first_iteraror("text");
> //...advance to the second match
> replace_range(str1,*it,"nonsense"); // str1=="the text is nonsense"
> If this seem ok (in my opinion, it is), I will remove *_nth algos straight
I find it a bit wrong to make such changes after the review. It should be
part of the second version of the library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk