On 02/07/2012 15:20, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM, news.gmane.org <lukester_null@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I've not looked at whether something such as templatizing the str() method on the string implementation is possible, as either of the above is sufficient for my own purposes and trivial which I suspect a templatized str() wouldn't be...
Anyway, if there's any interest I can post a patch for either or both and if not continue using the first method (simpler diff from the original)!
What's the concrete advantage?
OT: I would like to see a way to avoid the ( ).str() bits.
Olaf
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
For me, avoiding the use of ref-counted G++ strings. Currently use STLport for this sole reason, but there seems to be little development on STLport these days and their SSO string uses a buffer of 4 * sizeof(void *) - which isn't great when your mean string length is 11 bytes and you're running on a 64-bit platform... g++'s vstring seems to have performance almost as good as STLport's (and way better than boost's) from the limited testing I've done. I should mention that the performance of boost.format is not an issue as it's not used in any time critical code - just a while load of pain if unable to support alternative strings, hence my hackery. Regards Luke Elliott.