-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of loufoque

Those functions are perfectly grouped in string_algo, which is a very explicit name.

But why should I look there? string has replace/find_first_of/etc. Obviously it has higher level manipulations, why should I think to look further?

...

For better or worse, C++ is documented as a OO language and not as a procedural language.

C++ isn't a OO language. There isn't a C++ Standard Library official documentation, but from

all

the ones I have seen it's certainly not documented that way.

Have you looked at the standard? Basic_string is documented very much like a object and there is no mention of external algorithms for manipulating it anywhere near the documentation for it.

...

Anyway, my point is that it is a huge documentation difference when it comes to being able to see what is available to be done to a string. I have seen a few attempts to treat string specially in the documentation and lump things together. However, this is generally inconsistent with all the other objects and for no better reason than C++ has a lame string class.

It's not very good, indeed, but I wouldn't call it lame.

Well, given the differences between std::string and std::vector<char>, I would. Add the STL algorithms and most everything can be done with the vector that can be done with the string. I think that makes string pretty lame. joe