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

From: Thore Karlsen (sid_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 15:47:35

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:59:23 -0400, "Gennadiy Rozental"
<gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> Well, one thing I use it for is parsing HTTP directly in the read
>> buffer, which is a vector. If the interfaces weren't generic, I'd either
>> have to write my own functions to duplicate the functionality, or I'd
>> have to copy the incoming data to a string. The first seems silly, and
>> the latter would have unacceptable overhead in my case. The HTTP I'm
>> parsing is streaming video from several dozen cameras at once, so I have
>> to work with the buffers directly.
>>
>> I also use this library on plain old C strings, which wouldn't be
>> possible if it were locked to basic_string.
>>
>> Some changes may make sense, but I really like the way it is now.

>The way I see it all string algorithms should be using class like 
>const_string in their interfaces.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that no string
algorithms should modify a string in-place? That would be unacceptable
to me. I wouldn't use such a library.

-- 
Be seeing you.