Dean Michael Berris wrote :
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk@yahoo.com> wrote:
-
From: Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Artyom <artyomtnk@yahoo.com> wrote:
It would turn away 90% of users.
It might turn you away because you obviously love std::string. Generalizing is a different matter and is largely a hot-air blowing exercise that is futile for convincing anybody.
I would say it more clear:
1. All users that use C libraries and need c_str() at boundaries And this is a huge amount of users that need to communicate with modules that are already working and ready but written in C.
And this is about of half of libraries there is C is the lowest level API that allows easy bindings to all languages.
But c_str() doesn't have to be part of the string's interface.
*My* *guess* is that Artyom think that: os_func ((s1 + s2 + s3 + ... + s100).c_str()); // s for std::string is dramatically faster than: os_func ((c1 + c2 + c3 + ... + c100).to_string().c_str()); // c for "boost::chain" Regardless of the validity of my present guess, I'm quite sure that this concern (and other similar ones) will be shared many developpers. Ivan