From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-23 04:25:21
Hubert Holin wrote:
> Somewhere in the E.U., le 22/10/2004
> I just wanted to point out that the reason I was interested in it
> is that I had been told (when it was in the sandbox, quite some time
> before the review) it had the potential to help me simplify tremendously
> my quaternion and, especially, octonion libraries, by providing a better
> handling of input operators. So I would say (better late than never,
> though perhaps it is now *too* late) that there actually *is* an
> interest in input facilities.
I haven't yet removed the input facilities from the library. To me,
these are the reasons to keep the input in the library:
 The library provides stream operations on STL containers, so why
only provide output of a list/vector/...? This would mean that you'd
need to implement the input operations using some other library, adding
a further dependency on that library.
 Symmetry and completeness. I know my library during the review was
called "Output Formatters" (I would like it to be in the
mini/second-review as "I/O Collection Framework" or something similar),
but not providing input would be, IMHO, an oversight.
 There have been people in the for input facilities camp as well as
those against. For example, Roland Richter is using my library in
conjunction with lexical_cast to convert between strings and containers.
Therefore, I would prefer to keep the input facilities (at least until
the end of the mini/second-review).
I will commit the updated library once I have finished revising it,
based on the review feedback.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk