Hi, Reece On 1/30/06, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:
For me personally, the reason I didn't submit any review, that I'm not completely understand the purpose of the library. The documentation (as few mentioned) lacks motivation and general description. So how can I review the library, if I can't understand what the library is trying to solve and how. I can't say for others, but for it is the reason. I suggest that even if documentation can't be updated during formal review, that the author will give a little more extended explanation here, at mail list. [...] If the introduction does not make this clear, I have written the documentation wrong. *This* is why feedback is useful - to know what people don't understand about the documentation, so I can address those issues for
Pavel Antokolsky aka Zigmar wrote: the next review. Otherwise, the documentation will most likely still suffer from the same problems. Unfortunatly, it is not clear. Now, I'm beginning to see the point. Originally, after the reading introcution, especially first sentence ( "There is a lot of C (and even C++) code, that uses character buffers and the C-style string functions for various reasons: updating legacy C code, wanting to keep executable size down without linking to a large dynamic library or wanting to tune performance by keeping the strings on the stack." ) I've got the idea, that the main purpose it to create _fast_ stack-based strings with C++ interface (something like boost::array), and buffer overrun protection are just nice feature of such strings. As far as I understand now from you description, previews reviews and my look at the code, perfomance is not a main goal at all, and the buffer protection is the target. But then, why string should be "fixed" (and, AFAIU, it is not exactly fixed)? Isn't it just, say, safe_string? I'm not criticizing, just trying to understand the rationale... -- Best regards, Zigmar