El 24/10/2025 a las 6:39, Vinnie Falco via Boost escribió:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 4:17 AM Dmitry Arkhipov via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Url's and Charconv's maintainers decided to not play along with the charade and reference boost::core::string_view directly with the obvious drawback that that type is not documented anywhere.
core::detail::string_view was added because this pull request FROM 2018 (seven years ago) was rejected: https://github.com/boostorg/utility/pull/51
We really need to fix this properly. In my opinion the maintainer of utility::string_view made the wrong choice when they rejected the pull request to make the constructors more useful. The consequence is that several Boost authors now use core::detail::string_view because it better satisfies user needs. At a time when people complain that Boost has its own version of std types, it would be best if we could come together and sort this.
The whole situation is messy, made more so but the fact that boost::core::string_view does not live in a detail namespace and yet is in header boost/core/detail/string_view.hpp and lacks documentation. A simple Github search shows that it's being used in the wild (i.e. outside Boost). Of course it'd be best if the authors involved agreed on a single, common string_view class across Boost. Barring that, my opinion is that boost::core::string_view should be properly lifted to public status and people will ultimately decide which one they use --this is unfortunately not the first case of such a situation, we already have it for iterator helpers provided both by Boost.Operator and Boost.Iterator. Joaquín M López Muñoz