Re: [boost] Re: [Formal review request] const_string

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-18 06:40:57

Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:44:42 +0100, Reece Dunn <msclrhd_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Jeff Garland wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:00:52 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote
>>>
>>>> Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility
>>>> [*]. Its  interface and implementation has now reached a stable
>>>> state (I hope).
>>>>
>>>> I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review
>>>> queue.
>>>  Wasn't there some discussion of merging this proposal with the
>>> fixed_string
>>> stuff and reviewing it together -- looks like that's been decided
>>> against?
>>
>> I haven't heard anything against the merger.
>
> Neither did I.

If you want to hear a voice against the merger, I will be glad to respond. 
;-)

Can't speak for others, but I'd like to see the specifications of the 
components first, before going ahead with a merger, which can obscure things 
a bit.

Obviously, every std::string replacement might need to provide a number of 
boilerplate member functions that can be expressed in terms of a more 
primitive interface, and this functionality can be implemented as a reusable 
component. But this is not a merger. It's plain old reuse.