Re: [boost] [string] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-27 09:37:19

> From: Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]>
> 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?
> >
> > Because as  you mentioned below, many things
> > from boost go to std, i.e. shared_ptr,  function, bind and
> > many others.
> >
> > So it shouldn't be  "string" as C++ already has one.
> >
> 
> By this logic, interprocess'  containers shouldn't be called vector,
> map, list, set, unordered_set,  unordered_map. That doesn't make sense.
> 

They are intendant to remain in interprocess namespace and have
same functionality as standard list/set etc.

This is different case.

> 
> >
> >>
> >> Who gave you the monopoly on what  `string` should mean?  :P
> >>
> >
> > Nobody gave me a monopoly,  however such monopoly had
> > given to C++ standard committee that had  defined what
> > string means in C++'s standard namespace.
> >
> >  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.

Deprecated, not changed in backward incompatible way.

> >
> > 1. Make it fully  backward compatible with std::string
> > 2. Call it by different  name.
> >
> 
> Nope, I disagree with both.
> 
> std::string can be  deprecated if the standards body agree that there's
> cause for it to be  deprecated. And the different name is frankly  just
> unnecessary.
> 

It may be deprecated, not removed become broken. Personally I
don't think that immutability worth breaking 95% of existing code.

So just call it boost::text, boost::unicode_string, boost::immutable_string
or whatever you want, but boost::string is bad idea.

Artyom