On 1/30/11 5:27 AM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote: [snip lots!]
Does that make sense?
No, sorry. I'm trying to decide whether
(a) You're describing general problems that I should know about but don't. (b) You're describing problems that apply to advanced architectures (NUMA) that I have limited experience with. (c) You're confused, and these problems don't exist at all.
Have you ever had the experience of talking to someone, maybe in a job interview, and thinking "this guy is either a genius or an idiot but I don't know which"? That's what I'm getting here. I hope that wasn't too honest! Sadly, I don't have enough time to delve any deeper.
<offtopic> At that point, while grading exams, I usually give up trying to understand and award my students with a 'sympathy point'. That saves time on my end and honors the student for trying :-P </offtopic>
FWIW, I am an advocate of immutable strings and views. I've been advocating that for a long time now (looking back at messages in this mailing list from years back). The very design of immutable sequences is embodied in the design of fusion, for example, where operations return new sequences or views instead of direct manipulation. I won't go into this thread though and I won't go as far as saying that std::string is broken. I believe both should co-exist (immutable and mutable). I also believe that immutable strings and views can be built on top of, and should accommodate, any existing string including the C string through traits and customization points. I think Dean has very valid points that are unfortunately drowned under heavy and wordy rationales which have the tendency of having more holes which are potential reasons for misunderstandings and disagreements. Bottom line: just do it and the work will speak out for itself. Talk is cheap. Output and results (e.g. code and benchmarks) speak better. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net