13 Jan
2016
13 Jan
'16
6:56 p.m.
On 13 January 2016 at 12:25, Lee Clagett <forum@leeclagett.com> wrote:
The macro `STRING_VIEW` seems unnecessary because the `string_view` constructor taking a single NULL-terminated string is also `constexpr`.
While the templated constructor for basic_string_view is constexpr, this constructor for string_view cannot be used in a constexpr context because char_traits<char>::length isn't constexpr. :-( See LWG 2232 <http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2232>. I've been told it works this way by design... So yes, we do need the macro. -- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@cplusplusguy.com <nevin@eviloverlord.com>> +1-847-691-1404