Reece Dunn wrote:
Different programmers favour the different semantics, so I ask: why not parameterise it, providing a default behaviour.
As with "do we null-terminate", I think we have to pick a behavior and stick to it. I could live with either set of semantics, but adding a parameter makes the issue more confusing. (And you have to supply conversions.) Most strings are sized a bit too big, anyway. On a related subject, we should have unconditional null termination. "fixed_string" items are always null-terminated. "snprintf", "strncat", etc. have hazardous semantics: if you overflow the string, it is not null terminated. (This is a bug in my current version, incidentally.) We should guarantee null termination in all cases. The whole point of this class is improved safety, after all. John Nagle Team Overbot