On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Yakov Galka <ybungalobill@gmail.com> wrote:
fundamental? hardly. std::string is not guaranteed to be null terminated.
Guaranteed (almost) since C++11. c_str() and data() now *mean the same thing*,
Really? Got a reference for that?
See C++11 [string.accessors]/1-3.
and s[s.size()] returned null even in C++03.
Is that defined behaviour? You're essentially dereferencing end().
Yes, it is and was well defined, and no, this is just not the way it is phrased. See C++98 and C++03 in [lib.string.access]/1 where this is the case for the const version only, and C++11 [string.access]/1-2 which corrects the wording for the non-const version too.
The only thing that is
not guaranteed is that *(&s[0] + s.size()) is null. Anyway the point is that you can retrieve a null terminated string from std::string in constant time, without copying anything. So it is practically null terminated.
True, but that's std::string. Not all strings are std::string.
" A string_ref that's not required to be null-terminated is far more useful." still holds
True, but then it is unclear how it is string specific compared to iterator_range. Or said otherwise, it solves a different problem. -- Yakov