From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-12 22:54:55
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Still, does it really seem like a good idea to do what the designers of the
> STL wanted to explicitly disallow...
I don't believe any such intent was ever expressed by the standard
committee. It's true that they explicitly avoided virtual functions in
the standard library -- iostreams excepted. It's really Scott Meyers
advice that drives the 'never inherit' from a base w/o a virtual
destructor. As much as I generally agree with that advice the
'stateless' functional extension is a useful and portable technique in
my experience.
> Why not define additional
> functionality externally? (I believe there was once a library in the Boost
> review queue called string_algo, or similar). This would be a better design
> choice, IMO.
Ah, string_algo is part of boost and super_string uses it in the
implementation just like it uses boost.regex and boost.format. It might
be informative for you to go back and read the earlier email thread.
http://listarchives.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/07/107087.php
Jeff