From: Kon Lovett (klovett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-02 13:28:35
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Jul 2, 2006, at 9:51 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I've been working on a little project where I've had to doing lots
>> of string
>> processing, so I decided to put together a string type that wraps up
>> boost.regex and boost.string_algo into a string type. I also
>> remember a
>> discussion in the LWG about whether the various string algorithms
>> should be
>> built in or not -- well consider this a test -- personally I find
>> it easier
>> built into the string than as standalone functions.
> I appreciate the convenience of such an interface, I really do, but
> doesn't this design just compound the "fat interface" problems that
> std::string already has?
> Even Python's string, which has a *lot* built in, doesn't try to
> handle the regex stuff directly.
I smell Objective-C.
In which School of Philosophy is Boost?
Perhaps a 'convenience' namespace where "fat" types can live.
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk