Re: [boost] [string] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Ivan Le Lann (ivan.lelann_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-29 07:07:08

Dean Michael Berris wrote :

> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > -
> >> From: Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]>Â wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It would turn away 90% of  users.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It might turn you away because you obviously love  std::string.
> >> Generalizing is a different matter and is largely a hot-air blowing
> >> exercise that is futile for convincing anybody.
> >>
> >
> > I would say it more clear:
> >
> > 1. All users that use C libraries and need c_str() at boundaries
> > Â  And this is a huge amount of users that need to communicate
> > Â  with modules that are already working and ready but written in C.
> >
> > Â  And this is about of half of libraries there is C is the lowest
> > Â  level API that allows easy bindings to all languages.
> >
> 
> But c_str() doesn't have to be part of the string's interface.

*My* *guess* is that Artyom think that:

  os_func ((s1 + s2 + s3 + ... + s100).c_str()); // s for std::string

is dramatically faster than:

  os_func ((c1 + c2 + c3 + ... + c100).to_string().c_str()); // c for "boost::chain"

Regardless of the validity of my present guess, I'm quite sure that this 
concern (and other similar ones) will be shared many developpers.

Ivan