From: me22 (me22.ca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-11 09:56:43
On 7/11/06, Tomas <pecholt_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I find your improvements over string class interface very valuable. Is there
> any hope to incorporate these changes directly into basic_string in the
> future C++ standard? I mean it's fine we now have super_string class but the
> fact we have two string classes for the same thing is confusig. And if
> super_string is superset and better than std::string why not replace it?
My problem there is that it's only solving a problem (assuming for now
that there is one) in one place instead of doing something more
general that could later solve it in other places.
If foo(bar,a,b) could always be written as bar.foo(a,b) and algorithms
taking an iterator range also accepted just a container (and returned
a container instead of using an output iterator (range?), if
applicable), would a super_string still be needed?
~ Scott McMurray
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk