On 14 Dec 2025 03:17, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
What's the point in discussing things anyway, when there are only two opinions, yours and wrong?
It's not quite clear to me what your opinion is. What's the right thing to do? Nothing at all? You find the status quo satisfactory and see no problem with it?
Having multiple string_views in Boost is a problem. Having multiple string_views that are publicly documented and advertised to users is a bigger problem. So no, I find neither the status quo nor what you propose satisfactory. I was initially against introduction core::string_view because I thought this would happen, and it did. Libraries now just have to support one more string_view in their interfaces. My hope was that at least the libraries would mention a concept of string_view in their documentation instead of exposing the mess we have internally, so that users would only deal with std::string_view or boost::string_view, whichever they choose for themselves. But apparently that didn't happen either, and some libraries documented or referenced core::string_view. I already said what I think should be done. Make a proposal to keep just one string_view in Boost. Whether that is core::string_view or boost::string_view, I don't really care at this point. Then the community reviews that proposal. Then, if it's accepted, we act on it. Meaning, one of the implementations will have to go eventually. PS: Oh, right, I forgot we also have boost::string_ref. That one definitely needs to go.