Re: String Class Question

[David Sugar]

The Common C++ string class has several attributes that make it unique from 
the stl form.  First, it has the ability to scavenge and re-allocate memory 
from previous strings rather than performing a separate new/copy/delete 
operation (and underlying malloc) every time a string is created, resized, or 
otherwise modified.  Hence, it doesn't have the same performance issues that 
commonly exist in classical std::string class implementations and current 
templated string classes.  Second, it is threadsafe.  Third, short strings 
live entirely within the class object itself rather than requiring a second 
memory allocation to be managed.  Of course there are many string classes out 
there, and the Common C++ one is very new.

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 04:53 pm, Conrad T. Pino wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I found Common C++ project while searching for a
> portable String class.  I've also found the C++
> Standard Templates Library (STL):
>
>       http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/
>       http://www.stlport.org/
>
> Clearly this project's "String" class has no direct
> relationship with STL "basic_string" template class.
>
> How are these implementations related in time?
> Which came first?  Did development overlap?
>
> Which implementation is gaining popularity in new
> projects?
>
> Does Common C++ project have plans to support 2/4
> byte character sets?
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad Pino