Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-27 13:04:45
On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Stewart, Robert
> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> That's short, but not descriptive. The "i" prefix is more suggestive of "interface" than "immutable" to me. Why not just go whole hog and call it "immutable_string" as Artyom suggested?
> The only objection really is that it's too long. :D Less characters is better.
> /me gets a thesaurus and looks up string :D
Ok, but why this focus on immutability? Is that not a quite orthogonal concern to the encoding problematics discussed here (as well...)?
I would prefer to have this discussion be about the encoding aspect(s) rather than immutability, unless the latter somehow intrinsically enable a much more improved handling (and preferably at the interface level) of various encoding, and I seriously doubt that.
So, if we keep this discussion at that of a mutable sequence of characters, according to some encoding(s), I would be less grumpy.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk