Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Vladimir Batov (vbatov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-09 20:45:43
> Vicente BOTET <vicente.botet <at> wanadoo.fr> writes:
>>> The classes I expect to be used are regular classes with value semantics.
>> Our classes with value- and pointer-semantics (pimpl-based) are as
>> regular/normal. They just happen to be not your classes.
> When I used regular classes I was not referring to normal or abnormal classes,
> but what Adobe ASL and
> Stepanov call regular types. Sorry for the imprecision.
Ah, I thought you used 'regular' casually. Apologies.
> You can assimilate a regular class as one that behaves like a built-in type.
> But, please see [snipped the URL]
> for more information) or google for Fundamentals of Generic Programming,
> regular types, Stepanov.
Yes, I am aware of the paper. In the "Summary" it says: "In this paper, we have
investigated several of the fundamental operations on built-in types in C++, and
identified characteristics they should have when applied to user-defined types."
In typical Russian style Stepanov pursues something he believes in with a vigor.
However, "built-in characteristics applied to user-defined types" is something I
seriously believe is mis-guided even though I understand the desire to simplify
and unify. It's unrealistic to expect complex user-defined types to fit in the
Procrustean bed of built-ins. IMO is should be the other way around... and I
believe that was the original C++ understanding (see Stroustrup "Evolution").
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk