2012/11/16 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>:
On November 16, 2012 10:27:33 AM Antony Polukhin <antoshkka@gmail.com> wrote:
2012/11/16 Yanchenko Maxim <maximyanchenko@yandex.ru>:
Marshall. low <mclow.lists. at> gmail.com> writes:
Please let me know what you think!
As probably everyone, we have our own device for this. Here are some points and experience we gathered.
1. This class is essentially just an iterator_ range<char*> (modulo template for const/wchar_t), so it should either inherit from it or have corresponding converting ctors/operators. In this sense Olaf/Gennadiy's remarks are pretty valid. OTOH size is needed very frequently and having it precomputed is a good thing, so conversion approach seems to be better (but then we lose passing by reference as iterator_range, type_traits etc). I'm not sure what's more important.
+1 for having corresponding explicit converting ctors/operators. (explicit or not?)
As long as iterator_range uses the begin()/end() protocol and string_ref has the corresponding member functions it should work without any special constructors/operators, shouldn't it?
Yes, but constructing string_ref from iterator_range requires additional constructor. 2012/11/16 Yanchenko Maxim <maximyanchenko@yandex.ru>:
See the difference:
char s[20]="ab\0c"; char_range(s); // size 2 because of strlen inside, runtime char_range::literal( "ab\0c" ); // size 4, compile time char_range::from_array(s); // size 20, compile time char_range::from_array( "ab\0c" ); // size 5, compile time
Missed that difference at first time.
approach seems to be better (but then we lose passing by reference as iterator_range, type_traits etc). I'm not sure what's more important.
+1 for having corresponding explicit converting ctors/operators.
Shouldn't they be implicit?
void f(str_ref);
string s = "Olaf"; f(s);
Looks nice. And what about constructors from std::array? BTW, I'd like to see a std::basic_string to_string()/str() and std::array to_array()/array() member functions. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin