Martin wrote:
Wouldn't the flex_string be even more flexible if it accepted ranges in constructor, assignment etc. (same for fixed_string, const_string of course)
This is true. However, this may result in undesired behaviour. For example: template< typename String > void foo( String & str, const std::vector< typename String::char_type > & vec ) { str.assign( vec ); // uses assign( const RangeT & range ) } int main() { flex_string< char, SomeStringType > str1; std::string str2; std::vector< char > vec; // = "Meine Welt!" foo( str1, vec ); // ok: str1 = "Meine Welt!" foo( str2, vec ); // error - std::string does not have assign( const std::vector< char > & )! } This may change in either a TR or the next standard if/when ranges are added and incorporated into std::basic_string.
Then you could easily switch between different string types without the .c_str ()
This deepnds on whether begin(input), etc. would detect that flex_string has begin()/end() defined. Of course, the logic could be added to the begin( RangeT ) and end( RangeT ) definitions.
template <class RangeT> flex_string(const RangeT& input, const A& a = A()) : Storage(a) { assign(begin(input), end(input));
Couldn't this be assign( input ), since assing would have a RangeT variant.
}
Regards, Reece Haston Dunn Software Engineer, Sophos Web: www.sophos.com Sophos - protecting businesses against viruses and spam