Re: [boost] [string] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-27 09:11:52

Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> From: Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]>
> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Then don't call this thread  [boost][string] proposal and don't
> >> > call it  boost::string
> >>
> >> Why not? If it's different from std::string why  wouldn't
> >> boost::string be a proper name?
[snip]
> > It is fine have other strings but IMHO they should not
> > be called boost::string.
>
> And IMHO std::string's current interface can be deprecated by a
> suitably convinced standard committee.
>
> It's like std::auto_ptr being deprecated along with the interfaces of
> dozens of other libraries. If boost::string is a really well
> implemented string that does things really really well, then I don't
> see why std::string can't be deprecated in favor of an arguably better
> but certainly different string paradigm.

That's a bad analogy.  std::auto_ptr was deprecated, but not in favor of another std::auto_ptr but rather by std::shared_ptr.  To do what you're hoping for, the committee would need to deprecated std::string and promote std::some_other_name.  Thus you should create boost::some_other_name.  (Artyom might accept the addition of the latter, but clearly hopes for the survival of a slightly improved std::string.)

> The point I was making was that Spirit has its place in Boost because
> it does something different from the norm. It was developed with one
> thing in mind: make defining parsers in pure C++ using an embedded DSL
> possible.
>
> It's a different way of doing it and whether it's better is not
> relevant -- that it's there and being used by people no matter how
> many/few is what's important. For the record though I personally think
> the Spirit way is the better way, but of course that's IMHO.

Notice, however, that it was not named for an existing tool.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.