Re: [boost] [string] proposal

On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
And I stopped before I write too much -- the initial version is already up: https://github.com/downloads/mikhailberis/cpp-string-theory/cpp-string-theor...
-- I'll give it more information and the actual interfaces and implementation as soon as I get some Z's. :)
Hi, I have a question. You keep saying that the string (or chain) has no encoding the string is "just a sequence of bytes" but that doesn't make sense. The bytes have to have some form of encoding otherwise how do the adapter classes know how to convert the sequence of bytes into an encoded sequence? When you say the string has no encoding do you simply mean the default encoding is implementation dependent? Did I miss where you said this somewhere? Oh, and I see the value in an immutable string. I just think you are still at such a high level that it's hard to see where you are going for some people. Joe

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Joe Mucchiello <jmucchiello@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
And I stopped before I write too much -- the initial version is already up: https://github.com/downloads/mikhailberis/cpp-string-theory/cpp-string-theor...
-- I'll give it more information and the actual interfaces and implementation as soon as I get some Z's. :)
Hi, I have a question. You keep saying that the string (or chain) has no encoding the string is "just a sequence of bytes" but that doesn't make sense. The bytes have to have some form of encoding otherwise how do the adapter classes know how to convert the sequence of bytes into an encoded sequence?
The adapters assume -- and a validating algorithm does the validation. This makes adapters/views remain efficient in implementation, while putting validation as an explicit independent algorithm dependent on the desired encoding.
When you say the string has no encoding do you simply mean the default encoding is implementation dependent? Did I miss where you said this somewhere?
I mean strings by themselves as a storage data structure have no intrinsic encoding. Now if you want to build strings of a certain encoding -- as in the byte-level encoding -- you use a builder that knows how to do the appropriate encoding. If you take a string and want to implement it, you compose an interpretation of the string using a view. I haven't pointed out the view aspect yet since I'm focusing the document on the immutable string first. I see the encoding issue as largely a different problem that is solvable using appropriate views and algorithms that operate on the appropriate abstractions at a different level.
Oh, and I see the value in an immutable string. I just think you are still at such a high level that it's hard to see where you are going for some people.
Yeah, and the document after all is an initial draft anyway, it's only going to get longer and more explicit as it goes. Thanks for the questions/feedback, I hope this helps. PS. so much for Z's LOL -- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris
participants (2)
-
Dean Michael Berris
-
Joe Mucchiello