From: Jeremy Day (jeremy.day_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-13 15:29:58
On 10/13/06, Martin Adrian <adrianm_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I agree that string functionality is scattered into severeal places with
> hard to find documentation but still don't understand why a new type is
> than combining and unifying the documentation?
> (except that most of us programmers prefer to write code instead of
I may very well be speaking out of turn here, and I apologize to Jeff and
anyone else if I inadvertantly step on toes. It is my impression that Jeff
wanted a string class that he could use for all of his string needs, and
when he had something that functioned basically for that purpose he offered
it to Boost or any other interested parties. So a new string type is better
because it helps one developer, Jeff, do his job more efficiently. Now in
the future he just has to include something like "super_string.hpp" and then
can get access to whatever he needs. He doesn't have to scratch his head
and try to remember which string algorithm header to include for a
particular piece of functionality or anything like that.
Anyways, that's my take of the situation. I have every intention of
grabbing super_string just as soon as I need to do any sort of heavy (or
light, for that matter) string lifting.
Back to my dark corner now.