[boost] Re: Re: Re: [string algo formal review]

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-02 23:33:33

"Pavol Droba" <droba_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:20031102121649.GC5136_at_lenin.felcer.sk...
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:47:35PM +1100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> >
> > "Pavol Droba" <droba_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:20031101232101.GG27017_at_lenin.felcer.sk...
> > > 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.

my thought was that if it was heavily used, it was because it did serve a
real need and removal was not necessary. If only a few people used it, it
wouldn't be hard to depricate it.

> 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.

sounds reasonable.

-Thorsten