Re: [Boost-users] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 14:55:59

>>>String-algo : Interested, but concern over interface and choice of
>>>functions, generic vs basic_string.5.3 separate proposal
>>
>> Any details on this? I love this library, and I would love to see it
>> standardized in some form. Overall I've found the interface and function
>> choices to be excellent (and I'd love to see even more), and I love that
>> it's generic and not limited to basic_string. I use it on vectors and
>> other containers for different kinds of network protocol parsing.
>
> Thorsten Ottosen acted as champion for the paper, but I'll try to recall 
> the discussion.
>
> There concern was that at least some of the algorithms were only useful in 
> the context of strings, and so it would be an over-generalization to 
> supply them as free algorithms.

My point exactly. I believe string_algo library went (completely?) wrong 
way. It should never use iterator parameterization, but char type only. If 
there exist any algorithm that is useful beyond strings - it doesn't belong 
to this library.

Gennadiy