Boost logo

Boost :

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
>> 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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at