Jeff Garland wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Jeff Garland wrote:
I've been working on a little project where I've had to doing lots of string processing, so I decided to put together a string type that wraps up boost.regex and boost.string_algo into a string type. I also remember a discussion in the LWG about whether the various string algorithms should be built in or not -- well consider this a test -- personally I find it easier built into the string than as standalone functions.
It might be slightly easier to use at first, but it goes directly
It doesn't stop being easier to use -- it's the same every day. Your implicit implication is that later on I'm going to find a bunch of extra functions that I can't perform with super_string. True enough. At that point I either add it to super_string or write it using the functional interface. No big deal.
My implicit implication was that soon you'll feel comfortable with the free-standing functions. In php, there is not a single member functions in a string, and all string processing is done with free-standing functions. In general I find strings in php easy to work with: http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.strings.php http://dk2.php.net/manual/en/ref.regex.php
Not a good idea IMO.
We disagree, obviously, and that's fine. Just to save some time, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to convince me that range or something else is going to solve my set of issues.
Probably not. I did not have that I mind. I think some extensions to range will make stuff like regexes easier, but it would give you "one place for all string processing".
I'll just point out, that some of this was a result of recent brushes of mine with other languages. I've been doing some coding lately in, gasp, Java and Javascript. As a diehard C++ developer, it ticks me off that I can sit down with the manual for these languages and in 15 minutes whip up some fancy string parsing code using regular expressions, etc. It's all very nice and neat. Go to the string reference page -- see the list of functions and boom, you're in business. So it gets me thinking, why is it that C++ makes this so hard? Well, std::string isn't as capable as Java's string. Of course, C++ (with Boost) has all of the same capabilities, but it takes a truckload of documentation and a masters degree to figure it all out. And then it's a pain in the neck to use and read the code. This is my attempt to rectify that.
If the problem is bad documentation/tutorials, then I think we should fix that instead. For Java, many many people have been paid to write the documentation, whereas for boost, we have to do it our spare-time. It's pretty good most of the time anyway. -Thorsten