Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greer, Joe (jgreer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-13 11:32:44

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of loufoque
> Those functions are perfectly grouped in string_algo, which is a very
> explicit name.

But why should I look there? string has replace/find_first_of/etc.
Obviously it has higher level manipulations, why should I think to look

> > 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
> the ones I have seen it's certainly not documented that way.

Have you looked at the standard? Basic_string is documented very much
like a object and there is no mention of external algorithms for
manipulating it anywhere near the documentation for it.

> > Anyway, my point is that it is a huge documentation difference when
> > comes to being able to see what is available to be done to a string.
> > have seen a few attempts to treat string specially in the
> > and lump things together. However, this is generally inconsistent
> > 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.

Well, given the differences between std::string and std::vector<char>, I
would. Add the STL algorithms and most everything can be done with the
vector that can be done with the string. I think that makes string
pretty lame.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at