Re: [boost] A base64 library?

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:11, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 6:51 AM Misha Komarov via Boost wrote:

...

Regarding the unified interface, you mean something like this?

If I were writing such I library I would:

* minimize the use of templates * place as few function definitions as possible in the headers * make the library a compiled lib (NOT header-only) * require all input and output passed in contiguous buffers of char

I feel compelled to agree with Vinnie here. Also, the library should contain exactly two functions at inception: base64::encode base64::decode And none of the other "oh but what if we want base 63?". Nobody wants that or will ever want or need it. Base64 is mandated in a number of specifications and RFCs. It is used in these because it allows binary data to be encoded in such a way that it can be transmitted as 7-bit ascii without causing terminals to go haywire when printed.

I would not:

* use generic input iterators and output iterators * try make everything header-only

This is the philosophy I have adopted ever since writing Boost.JSON. Having extensively written libraries both ways I have concluded that for most of the domains I work in, the purported benefits of templating everything (muh generic algorithm) do not outweigh the downsides. I especially don't see the value in templating the input and output iterators.

I realize this will come across as an unpopular opinion, given the ingrained dogma of writing things "STL style."

Thanks

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost