Andy Little wrote:
"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote
Are you sure? You can write algorithms that don't rely on a specific capacity string.
OK I was under the impression you could (modify the capacity). Spell it out for me in the documentation in this case.
Noted.
you can write:
int strlen( const fixed_string_base< char >& str ) { return str.length(); }
Its possible to do this for fixed_string directly too.
template <typename T> typename boost::enable_if< is_fixed_string<T>, int >::type strlen( const T& str ) { return str.length(); }
But the solution is still using templates. You don't need to have a template to use std::[w]string. Thus, if you wanted to move: __declspec(dllexport) void some_function( const std::string & str ); to use fixed_string with the implementation you mention, you would need to expose the implementation of some_function to your customers and thus cannot use it as part of a library (.lib) or DLL.
The Spirit docs are very good :).
OK thats a good model . fixed_string should be easier to describe than Spirit too.
:)
I intend to keep the behaviour of the fixed_string class (modified, according to the review feedback). This is what the unit tests are for :). It is just *how* that is implemented that will change.
What about the (lack of) overrun policy?
Coming soon to a fixed string library near you :). The current unit tests will use the default overrun policy, which will be to truncate the string if overrun occurs. - Reece