Re: [boost] [Review] Fixed Strings review period extended

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 10:17:32

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Hartmut Kaiser
| Sent: 29 January 2006 23:31
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] [Review] Fixed Strings review period extended

As another silent downloader, I just want to agree that we really do need a
fixed_string,
(a less than ideal name for what I would call a bounded_capacity string).
This one looks reasonable but I was unclear that it was the right one.

I suggest that the answer is to reject for now, but ask Reece to do a LOT
more work on the documentation.  It left me confused, and although this is
not an uncommon state ;-) it would appear that I am not alone.

Doxygen is NOT helping at all - it is deluding the author in thinking the
job is done automatically..

What we need here is a full discussion of the rationale - pros and cons -
for why this design is the least worst, at least.

(In the end, the language is at fault - it doesn't have built-in array-bound
checked arrays where the compiler at least knows the fixed maximum capacity.
While it might have been better if we hadn't started from there, we did, and
we are now seeking as good a bolt-on fix as possible.)

Paul

-- 
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
Phone and SMS text [phone], Mobile and SMS text [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html
http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html