11 Dec
2012
11 Dec
'12
9:47 p.m.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Sergey Cheban <s.cheban@drweb.com> wrote: > On 09.12.2012 17:13, Rob Stewart wrote: > >>>> - safe bool or explicit bool conversion operator >>> I don't think this is a good idea. >> Why not? > This seems to be not intuitive and not so safe. It is quite intuitive to me. true means non-null, and false means null. > The std::string has no such operator. Why does that matter? It's still convenient. It would be a nice addition to std::string. >>> What about pop_back(), pop_front(), swap()? >> string_ref isn't a container, so pop_back() and pop_front() are inappropriate. However, back(), front(), and swap() are reasonable. > It is not a container (i.e., it does not own the content) but pop_* methods still may remove the characters from it. They wouldn't remove characters, they would only "forget" them. The semantic is sufficiently different that I don't think I would find them intuitive. > Btw, there also are [r]find*(), r[c]begin()/r[c]end() and compare() groups of methods in the std::basic_string. I don't think of string_ref as so complete an analogue to string. I see such things as the purview of a substring class, though that's purely subjective. >>> And again, I propose "substring" instead of "string_ref". >> I also have [const_]substring classes which have a different interface, so I disagree. (There is, of course, some overlap.) > 1. Are these classes in the Boost library and/or namespace? No. They are my own classes which I've not proposed to Boost. > 2. Do these classes do a different job, or they just have a different interface? They reference a std::string and operate on a subset of the string's characters. The have special constructors and replicate most of string's interface. ___ Rob