Re: [glob2-devel] Refactoring

[Sébastien]

Le Lundi 1 Mai 2006 18:12, Cyrille Dunant a écrit :
> On Monday 01 May 2006 18:04, Sébastien wrote:
> > Le Lundi 1 Mai 2006 17:31, Cyrille Dunant a écrit :
> > > > It's not lazyness, I talked about char* removal and the ellipsis
> > > > problem with Stéphane Magnenat, he told me to look at boost since we
> > > > already depend on it. If you have a better idea, fine, please expose
> > > > it. Reimplement everything all the time isn't a good solution too but
> > > > if you have an idea to replace xxxprintf wich is not a cut n paste of
> > > > boost, I'm open (even if there is work as opposed to what you said)
> > >
> > > No, now, it is too late anyway, we already depend on boost, so we might
> > > as well use it...
> > >
> > > Of course, _stripping_ the boost dependency would be a worthwhile
> > > endeavour
> > >
> > > :)
> >
> > I agree with you...
> > I quickly looked to AINicowar and I can't figure out where boost is
> > used... As a test I suppressed the include and all compiled fine, the
> > game is working
>
> Odd.
>
> Well, If you really want to use boost, it is your call -- but if it is in
I don't really want to use boost, I asked for a printf replacement and someone 
told me to look at boost
> fact _not_ used... But if it is only to replace printfs (even so as to
> follow the Real True Path Of C++ Leading To Supreme Enlightenement), could
I don't follow the Real True Path Of C++ Leading To Supreme Enlightenement. 
The fact is that some parts of glob code use old C char* and some other parts 
use C++ string. It could be a good thing to have something coherent. 
Currently, for some function calls you have the following :
string my_string        // A string
myfunc(my_string.c_str());       // A char *
in myfunc : 
myotherfunc(string(the_string_passed_in_argument) // A string, again !
the same append in myotherfunc, and so on...
> you please consider that it might be Not Necessary™ ?