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

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 16:07:44

>> The way I see it all string algorithms should be using class like
>> const_string in their interfaces. basic_string should implement 
>> const_string
>> interface. I really think we need to provide this within boost (I know 
>> there
>> is something in queue - lets where it will go)
>>
>
> Are you 100% sure, that const_string is the only reasonable string 
> representation?

const_string is more interface then a representation. There possible some 
design variations here

> There are already several others (FlexiString, sgi's rope) and several are 
> already

Non of them is standard, so no need to pay attention. Any *string* class 
that want conform string_algo interface needs to satisfy const_string one.

> announced (f.e. unicode_string).

As for unicode string it's a separate issue IMO. I personally quite sure 
that none of string algorithms will be applicable anyway. But this is topic 
of separate discussion based on some real submission.

> There has been so many discussions that monolithic
> approach is wrong, yet some people still argue in favor of them.

All depends on what you mean by monolithic. IMO string algorithms design 
should based in CharType/StringType not iterator type

> Original basic_string is mistake IMHO. It has overblown interface and yet 
> it is
> still not complete enough.

This as completely separate issue.

Gennadiy