Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [format] Any interest in decoupling it from std::basic_string?
From: (lukester_null_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-02 10:56:45

On 02/07/2012 15:20, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM,
> <lukester_null_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I've not looked at whether something such as templatizing the str()
>> method on the string implementation is possible, as either of the above
>> is sufficient for my own purposes and trivial which I suspect a
>> templatized str() wouldn't be...
>> Anyway, if there's any interest I can post a patch for either or both
>> and if not continue using the first method (simpler diff from the original)!
> What's the concrete advantage?
> OT: I would like to see a way to avoid the ( ).str() bits.
> Olaf
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

For me, avoiding the use of ref-counted G++ strings.

Currently use STLport for this sole reason, but there seems to be little
development on STLport these days and their SSO string uses a buffer of
4 * sizeof(void *) - which isn't great when your mean string length is
11 bytes and you're running on a 64-bit platform...

g++'s vstring seems to have performance almost as good as STLport's (and
way better than boost's) from the limited testing I've done.

I should mention that the performance of boost.format is not an issue as
it's not used in any time critical code - just a while load of pain if
unable to support alternative strings, hence my hackery.


Luke Elliott.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at