Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Variadic append for std::string
From: Christof Donat (cd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-25 11:49:44


Am 24.01.2017 17:27, schrieb Hans Dembinski:
>> On 24 Jan 2017, at 12:54, Christof Donat <cd_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I think, that composes less elegantly with boost::range or ranges::v3.
>> Maybe we could lean towards their adaptor APIs like this:
>> join(separator(" "), my_nums | hex<int>()));
> If you use the design with the unary function in the beginning, it
> works for boost::range and classic iterators. You can still compose
> several unary functions by using a lambda.

Sure, but a lambda is still more noise than a list of range adaptors (in
ranges::v3 they are called "views").

join(separator("\n"), my_bytes | hex<int>(fixed_size(2)) |
view::chunk(16) | join(separator(" "))).str();

Here I have added another, new idea. When join is only called without a
range, it returns a range view/adaptor, that expects to iterate over a
range of ranges and will return a range of string factories. The above
code would produce multiple lines with 16 hex representation of bytes

>> OK, here you made a point. In a specification I'd leave the behavior
>> undefined. In an actual implementation I'd have the later ones
>> overwrite the previous ones, because I expect that to be easy to
>> implement. We could also try and prevent that with meta programming,
>> but I think, that is not worth the effort. Leaving it unspecified in
>> the specification, still leaves us the option to do that later.
> If you can catch the error it at compile time, so that it costs
> nothing at runtime, it is certainly worth the effort.

The issue is, that doing that is a lot of work. If we really want to do
stuff and not just talk about, what could possibly be done, I'd propose
to not implement it in the first release, but keep the behavior
undefined in the specification, so that it can be implemented later.

>> A completely different approach, inspired by Python:
>> separator(" ").join(my_nums | hex<int>());
> -1. It looks artificial in C++. In Python it is okay, because it
> creates a nice symmetry with .split(…). Here, there is no symmetry
> with .split. And any case, both should be methods of std::string then.
> For a user it will feel quite arbitrary that he/she has do use
> separator(" ").join(…) and instead of the simpler std::string("
> ").join(…).

The latter is, in my opinion, even worse, because I really think,
std::string should not have many member functions. But yes, the syntax I
proposed here is not really intuitive in C++. Let's just forget about


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