From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-12 23:26:32
> 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?
Faint, I'd say. If you've been following the reaction, you'll know that this
is a tough area to get agreement. I don't know if there's enough support to
get it included in Boost and if you can't get the library into Boost it
doesn't bode well for the committee.
> 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?
Even if you could get agreement that super_string is better than string,
someone has to write a paper for the committee suggesting this. Many of the
string algorithms that super_string uses have been proposed for TR2, but I'm
not sure where they stand. I put super_string out there because it's useful
to me and I thought it would be useful to have a discussion about it. I don't
have time to write a paper to propose it to the committee, but if someone
wanted to do that I'd be fine with it. But beware, there's a good chance it's
a waste of time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk