[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspell-devel] stings.hpp
From: |
Kevin Atkinson |
Subject: |
Re: [aspell-devel] stings.hpp |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:43:40 -0400 (EDT) |
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, James Lee wrote:
> On 16/04/04, 12:56:09, Kevin Atkinson <address@hidden> wrote regarding Re:
> [aspell-devel] stings.hpp:
> Inefficiency aside, what causes the implicit type cast to ParmString?
> If ParmString operator== didn't compare strings, and as far as
> compilers go it needn't, it would be an error to use it implicitly.
...
> > Yes it can. The standard string class does not give me the control I
> > need. In particular there is no guarantee that the string is stored in a
> > continuous area of memory, nor is there a way to get a mutable "char *"
> > pointer. Amount other things.
>
> Some would say immutable strings are a feature.
>
> It seems a lot of effort is going into recreating what is part of
> the standard library. As a matter of principle that makes me uneasy.
I have my reasons. They are well thought out. I do not have time to
justify my self to you.
> > The other don't inherit from String because they are implemented
> > differently.
>
> That would be the rationalisation I mentioned. Any reason why they
> need implementing in different ways? Why can't Sting alone provide
> what is needed?
ParmString is really a proxy class for either a String or a const char *.
See parm_string.hpp.
--
http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org