On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:22:17 +0800 Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
<emphasis> If you were to ask *me* and *me alone*, of course *I* think that *my* vision for boost::string *should* be the way strings are dealt with. Of course that's ego-maniacal and self-centered of me to say so, but if I had to be explicit about it and take a position I would say exactly that: std::string is broken and it doesn't deserve to be the string implementation that C++ programmers have to use. </emphasis>
Question: if you replaced std::string with your immutable string, how would you build strings one character at a time for it? std::back_inserter wouldn't be possible. A large number of current uses for std::string require that, all the way up to std::copy. Building them in an array or vector<char> would be less efficient due to an extra copy. I'm not objecting to the basic idea -- you made an excellent case for it in the message this is a reply to, and it convinced me. I just can't see any way that it could replace mutable strings, as you're asserting.
So why would I not want to call it boost::string? ;)
Because it isn't a string, in the accepted C++ sense? :-) -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *