Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-06 11:17:56

Jody Hagins wrote:
> 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
> "prefer immutable."
> 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.

Don't most of the advantages of immutability (representation sharing in its
various forms, especially in the presence of multiple threads) disappear
when you provide mutable accessors as well?

> I think your point about std::string is very important, and may be a
> better description of "fat" class. What makes a class "fat?"

The number of functions that need (or have - pick your definition) access to
its private members, probably.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at