Re: refactoring OUString

> On 06.06.2011 18:57, tora - Takamichi Akiyama wrote:
>> This is just an idea. How about adding a new class besides OUString?

On 2011/06/07 2:16, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> We already have enough string classes. :-)

Yes, we have! :-)

> Besides that, you are right, rtl::OUString is stupid. We planned to discuss its replacement in the context of a future OOo 4.0 release, allowing for some incompatibility here. If done properly, the changes would require only recompilation of in-process C++ code.

Sounds nice!

And also, please cover the underlying memory allocation mechanism which would be another key factor for the performance improvement.

One more thing. This might be controversial. But, IMHO, it would be better if a programmer takes care of the life duration of a string instance. Is it for a temporal use, or persistent use? I would like to say the new String class might offer certain ways to take care of its life duration.

> But as you know, we are faced with a completely new situation for the OOo future. So we should postpone discussing this topic until the dust has settled.

Yep, we should postpone this exciting topic!

Thank you for your time, Michael, Mathias.

Best regards,
Tora
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
For additional commands send email to [email protected]
with Subject: help