From: loufoque (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-13 11:05:40
Greer, Joe wrote:
> This is very different than basic or other procedural languages in that
> procedural languages make an effort to group related functions in their
> documentation whereas oo languages do not.
Those functions are perfectly grouped in string_algo, which is a very
> For better or worse, C++ is
> documented as a OO language and not as a procedural language.
C++ isn't a OO language.
There isn't a C++ Standard Library official documentation, but from all
the ones I have seen it's certainly not documented that way.
> I use this language every day, but I have to say that there is a certain
> love/hate relationship with it. There is just so much you just have to
> *know* with no consistent way of finding it if you don't. Google is
> really your friend in many cases.
It just looks like you don't have the good references.
Google will just give you uninteresting results.
Anyway you can't expect to find info about the standard library and
extensions in the same place.
> Anyway, my point is that it is a huge documentation difference when it
> comes to being able to see what is available to be done to a string. I
> have seen a few attempts to treat string specially in the documentation
> and lump things together. However, this is generally inconsistent with
> all the other objects and for no better reason than C++ has a lame
> string class.
It's not very good, indeed, but I wouldn't call it lame.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk