From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-02 07:16:49
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:47:35PM +1100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "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:
> > [snip]
> > > 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?
I think, I understand what is Dave trying to say. It easy to add something
to a library, because an addition does not break anything, while removal
always brings a slight chance, that it would break some code.
> > If this seem ok (in my opinion, it is), I will remove *_nth algos straight
> > away.
> I find it a bit wrong to make such changes after the review. It should be
> part of the second version of the library.
This si not fully correct. find_iterator was requested during the review
as an alternative to split algorithms. I have accepted this claim and it is
already being developed. *_nt variants are controversional and I was just trying
a way around the problems.
It such algorithms are not very important and there is another feasible way
how to provide the same functionaly in the means of the library, it might
be better to remove the problematic algorithms in favor to alternative.
Anyway, I think, that before final inclusion of the library, there will
be an unofficial mini review, to check that all conditions pointed out
during the review are met. This could also be a place to check issues like this one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk