Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sure. I am using a modified version of flex_string to implement fixed_string, so reviewing both (and also immutable strings) would be a good idea.
I have a comment regarding the code of basic_string_impl. In its member functions it uses unqualified names of base class's functions. Like this: template< class Base, class ErrorPolicy = noerror_string_policy > class basic_string_impl: public Base { // ... inline const_iterator begin() const { return( begin_()); } // ... } On a conforming compiler this code won't compile, because the first phase of name lookup never considers argument dependent base classes for unqualified names (while the second phase doing ADL only). I don't have a gcc 3.4, which does two-phase name lookup, to check, but I believe it won't compile it. I advise using qualified base class's function names by prefixing them with this-> or, better, with this->Base:: because in this case you won't have to mangle base class's function names with _ suffix. -- Maxim Yegorushkin