Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44496C6D.5080609@roguewave.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:36:13 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r395448 - in /incubator/stdcxx/trunk/tests:
 include/21.strings.h
 src/21.strings.cpp
References: <4448F5B8.8080708@moscow.vdiweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4448F5B8.8080708@moscow.vdiweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anton Pevtsov wrote:
[...]
> I think there is 
> no need in special formatting directive at this time -
> the format and format_hdr (the same to format but only parameters
> declaration) functions will do all work.

I keep wishing I could use the same formatting function to format
not only the rw_assert() strings but also those produced by calls
to rw_info(). I.e., to be able to format the name of the template
specialization without having to spell out "basic_string" with all
the template parameters or passing in pfid->cname_, pfid->tname_,
pfid->aname_, etc.

Now that I'm looking at moving the MemFun struct into the common
header the duplication of data (i.e., initializing cname_, tname_,
and aname_) between the tests and the driver is even more obvious
than before. And while I could use the format() function to do
this for me it's less convenient than a new directive would be.

Martin