From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-06 11:10:59
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:08:12 +0200
Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> IMHO, the ongoing discussion highlights some fundamental disagreement
> on what a string is/should be. There's an immutable string with free
> functions group and a fat-interface string group. Either approach
> looks wrong to me when taken alone.
I think you just nailed my thoughts, but I incorrectly aimed them at
I tend to lean toward the side of providing flexible SAFE interfaces,
rather than restricting them. I'm not against immutable. I am against
providing ONLY immutable interfaces. I'm not against mutable. I am
against providing ONLY mutable interfaces. Most of us probably agree
with the latter, probably a fair number of us disagree on the former.
No, I'm not in favor of fat interfaces, but I am in favor of providing
safe, efficient, flexible interfaces.
I think your point about std::string is very important, and may be a
better description of "fat" class. What makes a class "fat?" I do not
think it is the number of functions (member and free support) provided
in the interface, but the number of "roles" the interface attempts to
Anytime an interface attempts to do "too much" you are asking for
trouble. Restrict the job that an interface is trying to do, but allow
flexible ways to accomplish that job.
Hmmm. Maybe now I'm clear as mud...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk