On Sep 21, 2004, at 6:26 PM, John Torjo wrote:
std::vector<int> v; // equivalent to your "[ ", ", ", " ]" std::cout << formatob(v, "[ %, % ]");
// eq. to "<< ", " | ", " >>" std::cout << formatob(v, "<< % | % >>");
// set only open/close decorators std::cout << formatob(v, "<< %*% >>");
// sets only the separator std::cout << formatob(v, "*% | %*");
I like this as well. But it brings to the fore something I've been wondering about the overall coherence of boost, (I haven't spoken up as I'm relatively new to the list). What the discussion has evolved to, above, looks a *lot* like what is in boost.format, and it would seem to me that boost.format would be an appropriate place for it (both specifically, as above, and theoretically as well). The docs mention that the serialization part of outputformatters is better left to the serialization library itself, so that's not an issue... offhand I just don't see why this functionality should be separate. I apologize if this has been discussed. I just got back from vacation and the boost folder has 700 unread messages in it. :/ -t