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

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:57:09PM -0400, Gennadiy Rozental wrote: [snip]

...

I still don't see any good reason to it. String algorithms are primary based on *strings* and not *char type*. A string is first of all a container.

Exactly - they are based on strings, not string iterators. But if we agree that all strings (we are interested to cover with this library) are parameterized by character type we could use char type parameterization

...

As such thare are several options of its internal representation, none of them superior to other in all possible use cases.

The only reasonble abstraction we have so far is through iterators.

IMO iterator abstraction is unnachural for strings. Unless we are talking about unicode in 99.99% of cases string is just some_template

This is very true. String is realy in most cases some_template. However this "some_template" is far more important for the algorithm, than the "char_type" Char_types are perfectly described by the means of locales, and there is usualy no need to handle different char_type specificaly. On the other hand, "some_template" can vary quite a lot. And for an algorithm, that needs to make some manipulations on it, its interface is more important. I think, that there is some misunderstanding here. You are talking about char_type, but, that represents something different the iterator. Iterators are abstraction of a container, while the char_type is an abstration of a contained value. Based on your presentation, there is bigger difference between basic_string<char> and basic_string, then between basic_string<char> and FlexiString<char>. IMHO it is precisely the opposite. In addition I'd like to point out, that the string_algo library is not based on iterators, rather on Ranges. Range is an encapsulation of an iterator, and it is the best abstraction of a container we have so far.

...

I'm not saying that this is the only possible abstraction, but it has proven adequate.

It's proven implementable not adequate IMO

But I would realy like know what leads you to an idea, that it is not adequate. What is missing and what should be made differently? Can you provide a simple example of an algorithm, that is written your way? Regards, Pavol