Printf() vs cout: function versus stream

[andywestken]

I wish that there was a pre-formatting utility

Have you see Boost Format??
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/

Not sure it's exactly what you're looking for, but it allows you to use format strings with ostreams.

(nicked from Boost's docs)

    using namespace std;
    using boost::format;
    using boost::io::group;

    cout << format("%1% %2% %3% %2% %1% \n") % "11" % "22" % "333"; // 'simple' style. 

[GisleAune]

Read his whole post, his employers forbid him to use open source stuff.

[Duthomhas]

Yes, but the pre-formatting utility is already in the standard:

printf( "Hello %s!\n", name );

sprintf( s, "Hello %s!\n", name );
cout << s;

cout << (ostringstream() << "Hello " << name << "!\n").str()

If it is that big a deal, write your own that works exactly like the Boost one.

[andywestken]

@GisleAune

Read his whole post, his employers forbid him to use open source stuff.

I don't see a post from graham sullivan containing this info?

[helios]

You were quoting kempofighter.

[andywestken]

@kempofighter. It is a pity you have a blanket ban on all open source. Boost is not like a random open source library you find lying about the web, as "(m)any of Boost's founders are on the C++ standards committee ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_C%2B%2B_Libraries

Andy

[1yR4jE8b]

especially when many job projects that I am on forbid me from using open source

Why? Is it a licensing issue? Because many different open-source licenses do not require you to open-source your code if you use it in certain ways: BSD, MIT, even Boost has it's own license.

[Duthomhas]

It's a corperate lawyer issue.

[sohguanh]

I read an article elsewhere even the term Open Source is open to lawyer interpretations. Within Open Source there are BSD,MIT etc and according to some lawyers it does not indicate total "freedom" as in no need to pay monies to use etc.

How I wish someone unify and come to terms on a SINGLE Open Source license. This can save a lot of headaches for us developers when we propose certain Open Source libraries to our employers to do certain task and yet not infringe on any intellectual property issues with those Open Source libraries developers/organizations.

[firedraco]

Unfortunately: http://xkcd.com/927/

[helios]

there are BSD,MIT etc and according to some lawyers it does not indicate total "freedom" as in no need to pay monies to use

Well, I don't know what you may have read, but those two in particular are examples of royalty-free licences. In fact, the only requirement they make is to give credit (more or less); it's even possible to relicense to anything you want.

How I wish someone unify and come to terms on a SINGLE Open Source license.

That wouldn't make any sense for a variety of reasons.