From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-03 09:19:10
Hi,
Jeff Garland wrote:
>
> There's no restriction on for_each. I think the value of transform versus
> for_each for this case is marginal at best. As for trim versus trimmed, I'm
> afraid I don't like trimmed much. It's 'past tense'. To my ear it strikes as
> odd -- like the operation is already done. I normally think of mutating
> functions a present tense verbs. Just looking around a bit,
> Boost.string_algo-trim, QTString-trimmed, Java.String-trim, RWCString-strip --
> so it's not that consistent. As much as anything I'm leveraging
> Boost.string_algo here, so consistent naming is a virtue.
>
> Hopefully this won't make you mad, but your prior email made me realize that
> the mutating functions should return a self reference so now you can write:
>
> s.trim().to_upper().append(" more stuff ");
>
> The other thing it made me realize is that it would be handy to have
> additional overloads on the number of parameters in append/insert_at. So in
> the next version you'll be able to write:
>
> double dbl = 1.12345;
> int i = 100;
>
> s.append(dbl, " a string ", i);
> //"1.12345 a string 100"
>
> I'll probably do something like boost.tuple and support up to 10 arbitrary
> parameters. And at the suggestion of someone else, I'm also adding
> boost.format into the mix:
>
> s.append_formatted(dbl, "-some string-", i, "%-7.2f %s %=5d");
> //"1.12 -some string- 100 "
>
> So I'm afraid I'm making it more mutable, not less ;-)
I was following this discussion closely. I must say that I kind of like
your class. Especially in the way you propose it - as a convenience
wrapper build on top of algorithms. Having both, we have win-win scenario.
Just one remark on top of mutable vs. copy.
As you said, the major reason for coming with this class was a clarity
of code. I must say, that when I read s.trim(), I pretty much assume,
that the operation is performed on 's'. So mutable is natural winner for
me here.
Regards,
Pavol