From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-03 22:40:25
Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>
> Apart from optimization, the future (under range proposal)
> 'to_upper' might be:
>
> std::vector<char> const rng;
> std::string dst(rng|to_upper);
Sorta hard for me to anticipate the future ;-) Anyway, I assume rng can be an
std::string as well?
> The following is possible today:
>
> std::string dst = range_construct(rng|to_upper);
> range_copy(rng|to_upper|to_lower|to_upper, dst);
>
> Note that '|to_upper' is lazy.
I have no idea what this code does? Construct a range from chars that have
been upper-cased and write it into dst. Then copy the rng to while converting
it to upper, then lower, then upper? This one isn't winning me over with code
clarity...
> Well, IMHO, I prefer free-functions for another readability:
>
> ::CString rng;
> boost::to_upper(rng);
>
> std::vector<char> rng;
> boost::to_upper(rng);
>
> super_string str;
> str.to_upper(); // !
In the zero/one argument case there's no significant advantage. So I'll
repeat this case again:
std::string s1("foo");
std::string s2("bar);
std::string s3("foo");
//The next line makes me go read the docs again, every time
replace_all(s1,s2,s3); //which string is modified exactly?
or
s1.replace_all(s2, s3); //obvious which string is modified here
Of course, you want to be able to work consistently so you have to pull along
the functions with less arguments too.
Jeff