Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-02-08 11:45:17

On 2/8/24 14:28, Дмитрий Архипов via Boost wrote:
> boost::core::string_view is a string_view implementation that (unlike
> boost::string_view from Utility) can interconvert with
> std::string_view. This functionality was necessary for Boost.JSON to
> drop the standalone mode, because people who have access to C++17
> prefer to use std::string_view wherever they can. At the time there
> was no consensus on whether the type should be made public.
> Now in addition to Boost.JSON the type is also used at least by
> Boost.URL. And recently added Charconv is also using it. So, I want to
> raise the question again: should we make the type public and refer to
> it directly in our libraries' docs, rather than considering it an
> implementation detail?

I think, if boost::core::string_view is to become public, it should come
along with deprecating and then removing boost::string_view from
Boost.Utility. As well as boost::string_ref. Having three string_view
classes (if you count boost::string_ref, four if you count
std::string_view) is a real problem for interoperability.

This is assuming the two implementations are compatible in terms of
interface and behavior.

I'll add that this will not be a free transition for other libraries
that support or use string views. For example, in Boost.Log I support
boost::string_view and boost::string_ref but not
boost::core::string_view. Not that it should be difficult to switch, but
it's work. It's more complicated if the library or tool is unmaintained.

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