That's a much better approach than the previous one. It's sound C++, and it's simple. All the operations go in string_base. fixed_string need only allocate space. Where do you hit a problem? John Nagle Reece Dunn wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
I think we're back to using an abstract base class. The hacks to get around it introduce worse problems.
I would agree. I have been trying to find a way around the problem and have (sortof) by having a base class:
template< typename CharT > class string_base { private: size_t len, cap; // length & capacity CharT * buf; // data buffer public: string_base( CharT * b, size_t c, size_t l ): len( l ), cap( c ), buf( b ){} // non-virtual implementation };
template< size_t n, typename CharT > class fixed_string: public string_base { private: CharT data[ n + 1 ]; public: fixed_string(): string_base( data, n + 1 ){} };