Date: 2007-01-10 14:52:05
From: "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]>
> Markus Werle wrote:
> > And yet std::string should have never made it into the standard.
> > That beast is a counter example of cute design.
> > We now have std::string and std::wstring and someday std::wwstring?
> > This convention has no symmetry and I dislike it, too.
> > It takes a lot of headache to get my code switched to unicode
> > since all of it is polluted with the default 95% solution :-(
> I hear you, but I still think you're wrong :-)
> I think at this stage we need more opinions and some real world usage before
> changing these names again - we're on about the third naming scheme
> already - after previous discussions here.
My quick $.02: using double as the default makes perfect sense. As a developer, you are always free not to use the default. As a library user, you are stuck with whatever the library developers give you - but the same would be true even if there were no default. So I see no downside, and the upside is that the library is easier to use for beginners and for quick prototyping.
James Jones Administrative Data Mgmt.
Webmaster 375 Raritan Center Pkwy, Suite A
Data Architect Edison, NJ 08837
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk