• Danny (16/16) Jan 30 2006 I just spent a couple of days trying to find a good string tokenizer. I'...
• Matthew (20/42) Jan 30 2006 Ah, that is a bit unfortunate. I tend to use English spelling because I ...

Danny <Danny_member pathlink.com> writes:

I just spent a couple of days trying to find a good string tokenizer. I've been
using STLSoft for a few years, but didn't know it had one. I found out by
posting on c.l.c.m, and someone telling me it was called "string_tokeniser".
Stupid me for searching for "tokenizer"! 

Why is this non-standard spelling used? Does it serve a purpose, opther than
reducing the number of users of the libs?

Also, the docs themselves are pretty bad. Compared to boost docs, it makes the
libs look bad, when in fact what I've seen of the _code_ is better than Boost.
Wouldn't it be good to spend time and make the docs good.

Third, why don't you post about your work on codeproject or codeguru? I'm sure a
lot of it would be really useful to the members (many of who aren't exacytl C++
gurus).

I'm not being -ve, as I like the STLSoft code. Just you're not doing yourself
any favors ("favours"? ;-) with the documentation.

Fanks

DT

"Matthew" <matthew stlsoft.com> writes:

"Danny" <Danny_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:drmdhb$1ivd$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I just spent a couple of days trying to find a good string tokenizer. I've 
been
 using STLSoft for a few years, but didn't know it had one. I found out by
 posting on c.l.c.m, and someone telling me it was called 
 "string_tokeniser".
 Stupid me for searching for "tokenizer"! 

 Why is this non-standard spelling used? Does it serve a purpose, opther 
 than
 reducing the number of users of the libs?

Ah, that is a bit unfortunate. I tend to use English spelling because I am 
English. I recognise that it's occasionally problematic, but I guess it's an 
ingrained resistance to numerical hegemony. ;-)

But I take your point. I'll have a think about it. Perhaps I can address 
this with typedefs, and their class template equivalent.

 Also, the docs themselves are pretty bad. Compared to boost docs, it makes 
 the
 libs look bad, when in fact what I've seen of the _code_ is better than 
 Boost.

Well, er, thanks, I guess. ;-)

I can't argue that the docs are bad. It's something I'm always trying to 
work on, but there's just so much work to do, and documentation is never any 
engineer's favourite task.

 Wouldn't it be good to spend time and make the docs good.

It would. It's something I'm hoping to do this year, if I can squeeze the 
time.

 Third, why don't you post about your work on codeproject or codeguru? I'm 
 sure a
 lot of it would be really useful to the members (many of who aren't 
 exacytl C++
 gurus).

Never thought about it. Do you think that'd be helpful to the wider 
community?

I'm pretty time poor myself. Is that something I can interest you in? ;-)

 I'm not being -ve, as I like the STLSoft code. Just you're not doing 
 yourself
 any favors ("favours"? ;-) with the documentation.

Agreed.

Thanks for taking the interest and time to comment.

Cheers

Matthew