On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Sergey Cheban <s.cheban@drweb.com> wrote:
On 28.11.2012 14:48, Rob Stewart wrote:
OK, I suspect we're agreeing more than disagreeing. Here's the I/F of my string_ref:
- converting ctors from: o char const * o std::string const & o std::vector<char> const & o const_substring const & (my substring type) - other ctors: What about default constructor?
Yes
o char const *, size_t o char const *, char const * o char const (&)[N] May be, it is reasonable to add bool trim_last = true here? This would allow not null-terminated character arrays.
I can see value in that.
- similar assignment operators - similar assign() member functions - bool is_null() I propose empty() instead. I don't think that the substring (and especially string_REF) may be "null".
I suppose it should be empty(), though I hate that it isn't the right part of speech. That is, "empty" should be synonymous with "clear". Still, consistency with std::string should probably take precedence.
- safe bool or explicit bool conversion operator I don't think this is a good idea.
Why not?
- char const * data() - size_t length() I propose the alias size().
string_ref isn't a container like string, so I prefer just length().
- char const * begin()/end() +cbegin/cend.
Ah, yes.
- string_ref substr() - char operator[](size_t) Throwing at() may be useful, too.
I suppose so.
(I think that's a complete list. I'm doing it from memory now.) 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.
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.) ___ Rob