Re: [boost] Review of Daryle Walker's "More IO" library begins today, August 21, 2004.

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-30 02:47:10

On 8/28/04 3:36 PM, "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:BD55A2D6.E82D%darylew_at_hotmail.com...
[SNIP]
>> But why go through all the trouble to forcing an idea through a framework,
>> which is built on top of the Standard I/O framework, when the idea is simple
>> enough to go through the Standard framework directly?
> 
> The components, such as null_sink and value_source, are actually *easier* to
> write than the corresponding stream buffers.
> They can also be reused in cases where streams and stream buffers are not
> necessarily the best abstraction.

When would that ever happen?  (More on this in my review of the next
Iostreams library.)

> So I don't see this as a case of forcing them into a framework. As sources and
> sinks they express their core functionality concisely; as stream buffers, the
> are forced into the 'basic_streambuf framework' with its pecular interface
> (underflow, uflow overflow, xsgetn, etc, eback, pbase, ....)

But they're still forced through two frameworks.  The extra indirection
isn't worth it (especially since I've gone through your library).

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com