[Formal review request] const_string
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope). I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue. The documentation can be found here: http://conststring.sf.net/ (it's not in a final state, but I'm going to extend it while it stays in the queue) [*] http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/2180929 -- Maxim Yegorushkin
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:00:52 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue.
Wasn't there some discussion of merging this proposal with the fixed_string stuff and reviewing it together -- looks like that's been decided against? Jeff
Jeff Garland wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:00:52 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue.
Wasn't there some discussion of merging this proposal with the fixed_string stuff and reviewing it together -- looks like that's been decided against?
I haven't heard anything against the merger. I am pro merger, since it will allow const_string, fixed_string and flex_string/basic_string_impl to all be reviewed as one since they have related functionality. Regards, Reece
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:44:42 +0100, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Garland wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:00:52 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue. Wasn't there some discussion of merging this proposal with the fixed_string stuff and reviewing it together -- looks like that's been decided against?
I haven't heard anything against the merger.
Neither did I.
I am pro merger, since it will allow const_string, fixed_string and flex_string/basic_string_impl to all be reviewed as one since they have related functionality.
So, what specific steps should we make to merge it? -- Maxim Yegorushkin
Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:44:42 +0100, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Garland wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:00:52 +0400, Maxim Yegorushkin wrote
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue. Wasn't there some discussion of merging this proposal with the fixed_string stuff and reviewing it together -- looks like that's been decided against?
I haven't heard anything against the merger.
Neither did I.
If you want to hear a voice against the merger, I will be glad to respond. ;-) Can't speak for others, but I'd like to see the specifications of the components first, before going ahead with a merger, which can obscure things a bit. Obviously, every std::string replacement might need to provide a number of boilerplate member functions that can be expressed in terms of a more primitive interface, and this functionality can be implemented as a reusable component. But this is not a merger. It's plain old reuse.
"Maxim Yegorushkin" <e-maxim@yandex.ru> writes:
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue.
Have you already gone through all the steps of http://www.boost.org/more/submission_process.htm? If not, it is too early to enter the library in the review queue. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:59:49 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
"Maxim Yegorushkin" <e-maxim@yandex.ru> writes:
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue.
Have you already gone through all the steps of http://www.boost.org/more/submission_process.htm?
Not quite: Determine interest - I think the interst was determined: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/2180929 Preliminary submission - I'm not sure if the file section on Yahoo is alive, so I hosted it on SourceForge and made it available since the aforementioned posting. Refinement - I'm not sure about this step, since the library does not introduce new concepts, rather fills an existing gap. It also has been reported to work with existing code replacing std::basic_string<> with little effort. So..? -- Maxim Yegorushkin
Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:59:49 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
"Maxim Yegorushkin" <e-maxim@yandex.ru> writes:
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue.
Have you already gone through all the steps of http://www.boost.org/more/submission_process.htm?
Not quite:
Determine interest - I think the interst was determined: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/2180929
Preliminary submission - I'm not sure if the file section on Yahoo is alive, so I hosted it on SourceForge and made it available since the aforementioned posting.
Refinement - I'm not sure about this step, since the library does not introduce new concepts, rather fills an existing gap. It also has been reported to work with existing code replacing std::basic_string<> with little effort.
So..?
I think that the only thing that stands between you and a formal submission is the missing formal specification of const_string.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:35:48 +0300, Peter Dimov <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote:
I think that the only thing that stands between you and a formal submission is the missing formal specification of const_string.
Could you please point to a good example of the formal specification? -- Maxim Yegorushkin
Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:35:48 +0300, Peter Dimov <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote:
I think that the only thing that stands between you and a formal submission is the missing formal specification of const_string.
Could you please point to a good example of the formal specification?
The standard itself is the canonical example. If you don't have access to it, look at the TR1 draft: http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1687.pdf
"Maxim Yegorushkin" <e-maxim@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:opsf00bqq8ti5cme@wkcg6rirwp...
Recent postings showed interest in an immutable string facility [*]. Its interface and implementation has now reached a stable state (I hope).
I am formally requesting that const_string be added to the review queue.
The documentation can be found here: http://conststring.sf.net/
(it's not in a final state, but I'm going to extend it while it stays in the queue)
[*] http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/2180929
-- Maxim Yegorushkin
Sorry, I did not have a chance to follow this discussion, but how what you propose match against basic_cstring/const_string facility I ma using in Boost.Test implementation? Gennadiy.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:18:11 -0400, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote:
Sorry, I did not have a chance to follow this discussion, but how what you propose match against basic_cstring/const_string facility I ma using in Boost.Test implementation?
AIU, basic_cstring is akin to boost::iterator_range with some additional member functions. The proposed const_string is essentually a std::basic_string<> without mutating member functions (insert, erase, replace). It also supports reference semantics like the basic_cstring does, i.e. to hold a reference to an existing string rather than allocating and copying. -- Maxim Yegorushkin
participants (6)
-
David Abrahams -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Jeff Garland -
Maxim Yegorushkin -
Peter Dimov -
Reece Dunn