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 Â users.
> >> >
> >> It might turn you away because you obviously love Â 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk