> > <snip> > > > I had a look. It looks interesting, however I couldn't compile it with VC7, > I assume because of partial specialization you are using. > I have compiled it with gcc 3.2, just to see how tests are working, and > it worked just fine.
Thanks for trying. Portability has not really been addressed. > > Few comments about it. It is just my opinion, but I think its quite dangerous > to redefine std::basic_string. There are many different implementation of STL > and there is no guarantie, that your implementation will work with all of them. > It could be considerably portable if based on standard. > Also I don't think that something like this will be accepted to boost if for > nothing else then for the incorrect namespace. > > IMHO it would be possible to provide the same functionality outside of std > namespace. Template specialization should be done only in the same namespace in which the class was declared. John Maddock gave some very valid critics to these classes, and I tend to agree with him. I do not think that these classes will ever be accepted by boost as they are now, but sub string notion is very important in string oriented programs and algorithms and sooner or later this needs to be addressed. Let then my sub_string along with John's substring be a starting point. > > Well these are just my opinions and other boosters may have different. > > > Regards, > > Pavol Regards. Alexei. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
