Re: stings.hpp

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, James Lee wrote:

> On 16/04/04, 12:56:09, Kevin Atkinson <[email protected]> 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