Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-10 14:14:19

"Thore Karlsen" <sid_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:mv2lk1ldeo87dekbjkku3h39f7egqmh347_at_4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 21:32:30 -0400, "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>String-algo : Interested, but concern over interface and choice of
>>functions, generic vs basic_string.5.3 separate proposal
>
> Any details on this? I love this library, and I would love to see it
> standardized in some form. Overall I've found the interface and function
> choices to be excellent (and I'd love to see even more), and I love that
> it's generic and not limited to basic_string. I use it on vectors and
> other containers for different kinds of network protocol parsing.

Thorsten Ottosen acted as champion for the paper, but I'll try to recall the 
discussion.

There concern was that at least some of the algorithms were only useful in 
the context of strings, and so it would be an over-generalization to supply 
them as free algorithms.

One way to counter that argument would be to identify the functions you have 
found useful on other containers, and to provide some use cases to buttress 
the argument.

--Beman