----- "Patrick Horgan" <phorgan1@gmail.com> a écrit :
On 01/28/2011 09:59 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
So the interface I was thinking about (and suggesting) is a lot more minimal than what rope or std::string have exposed. I think when I do finish that design document (with rationale) it would be clear why I would like to keep it immutable and why I would prefer it still be called a string.
Let me finish that document -- expect something over the weekend. :)
And I stopped before I write too much -- the initial version is already up: https://github.com/downloads/mikhailberis/cpp-string-theory/cpp-string-theor... -- I'll give it more information and the actual interfaces and implementation as soon as I get some Z's. :)
You mention that your string is thread safe by design, but you only solve the problem of mutating the data of a string, your references to the pieces from which you compose a string are not thread safe, since they are mutable, right?
I don't think so. Isn't the easiest way towards proper composition to consider that the whole is the same as the part? I see the "chain" (I voted for that one!) as an immutable tree of immutable leafs. I think this can be naïvely seen as the following recursive boost::variant: boost::make_recursive_variant < boost::shared_ptr <const std::basic_string <code_unit_type>>, boost::shared_ptr <const std::list <boost::recursive_variant_>>
::type
Ivan