On 10/13/06, Martin Adrian <adrianm@touchdown.se> wrote:
I agree that string functionality is scattered into severeal places with maybe hard to find documentation but still don't understand why a new type is better than combining and unifying the documentation? (except that most of us programmers prefer to write code instead of documentation)
</lurk> I may very well be speaking out of turn here, and I apologize to Jeff and anyone else if I inadvertantly step on toes. It is my impression that Jeff wanted a string class that he could use for all of his string needs, and when he had something that functioned basically for that purpose he offered it to Boost or any other interested parties. So a new string type is better because it helps one developer, Jeff, do his job more efficiently. Now in the future he just has to include something like "super_string.hpp" and then can get access to whatever he needs. He doesn't have to scratch his head and try to remember which string algorithm header to include for a particular piece of functionality or anything like that. Anyways, that's my take of the situation. I have every intention of grabbing super_string just as soon as I need to do any sort of heavy (or light, for that matter) string lifting. Back to my dark corner now. <lurk> Jeremy