From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-02 11:27:38
> There's nothing wrong with that. It is std::basic_string's
> interface that provides for the use of a policy class. That
> std::char_traits happens to be the most appropriate -- it rarely
> isn't -- implementation of that policy is beside the point. You
> can argue that std::basic_string shouldn't have such a policy
> parameter, and you'd probably be right, but that's not
> std::char_traits' fault.
That's right. It's basic_string fault, which should've used char_traits by
name in basic_string implementation.
The only note to the char_traits design may be that compare method does not
nessesary belong to it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk