From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-12 22:54:55
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Still, does it really seem like a good idea to do what the designers of the
> STL wanted to explicitly disallow...
I don't believe any such intent was ever expressed by the standard
committee. It's true that they explicitly avoided virtual functions in
the standard library -- iostreams excepted. It's really Scott Meyers
advice that drives the 'never inherit' from a base w/o a virtual
destructor. As much as I generally agree with that advice the
'stateless' functional extension is a useful and portable technique in
> Why not define additional
> functionality externally? (I believe there was once a library in the Boost
> review queue called string_algo, or similar). This would be a better design
> choice, IMO.
Ah, string_algo is part of boost and super_string uses it in the
implementation just like it uses boost.regex and boost.format. It might
be informative for you to go back and read the earlier email thread.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk