On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Hans Dembinski
Hi Olaf,
I think << is quite elegant.
I feel very uneasy with it and I think I have presented quite some reasoning why. Also I don't seem to be the only one in this discussion. At least that should count as a strong indicator, that you need much better reasons to back your proposal.
I agree with Christof. Also think about consistency within the C++ standard library. Consistency is good, because it allows you to apply the same thinking elsewhere, instead of looking up everything in a reference. There should be a minimum of surprises in using a language and a library. Python does this very well, it is codified in the "There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to do it" rule.
Since many years we have established streams and containers as separate things. std::string is a container, std::ostringstream is a stream. They have separate responsibilities. You should not mix these. Herb Sutter and other experts already use std::string as a prime example of a class with too many responsibilities (in form of many member functions). Like it was said before, std::string should be a dynamic container of characters, nothing more.
I agree with Herb and that's why those operators are NOT member functions.. Note that the proposed syntax could also support other containers. -- Olaf