Re: [boost] Boost super_string

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-12 20:47:01

loufoque wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> loufoque wrote:
>>> Something more flexible might be an interesting base.
>> Such as?  What features would it have that would make it more flexible?
> 
> The ability to build the string type on top of std::string, std::vector, 
> std::rogue, or anything else.
> Something like flex_string, basically.

....
 > std::rope, of course.

sgi::rope I presume.

This is a legitimate request.  The issue came up during the 1st round of 
discussions and I prototyped and then dropped the approach.  Here was the 
rationale I posted in July:

   I dropped the string_type template parameter after actually doing the
   implementation of const_super_string.  The reality is that the
   implementation relies on the underlying string type and you can't just
   drop in a new base  string type easily.  The likelihood of using that
   parameter seems rather remote.  And the extra parameter complicates
   the documentation and the usage interface -- of which the goal is to
   make as easy as possible.

Now it could be that my view was clouded by the difficulty of the const_string 
experience.  That may have been atypical because it is a mutable/immutable 
string variation which requires different interfaces.  Plus const_string 
doesn't match all the std::string interfaces.

Anyway, I'd be willing to reopen the discussion on this decision if people are 
really using lots of alternative string types. I still think the usefulness is 
dubious. Besides, these alternate string types should already have the 
super_string features...right ;-)

Jeff