Re: Replacing a quote by a "\n" ...
* James Kanze:
On Nov 27, 6:25 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
[...]
Again, re optimization: std::string is not well suited for string
handling. It's not even well suited for passing strings around,
technically. But it's standard, and that's one great plus point, so
great that std::string is the default choice for that.
As a summary of std::string, this is actually pretty good. But
to be fair: std::string does define both the copy constructor
and an assignment operator---what else do you need for passing
strings around?
Efficiency, safety and possibly more information.
Efficiency:
- contiguous buffer (being addressed in C++0x)
- being able to avoid copying or new-ing when you have a buffer
- being able to avoid copying for forming substrings
Safety:
- especially to be able to form a string for passing as exception
text, without possibility of exception
More information:
- e.g. character set.
Achieving this "normality" (what one naturally expect of a string type,
unless exposed to std::string for too long...) needs a new string interface.
More generally: don't use fundamental library types as part of
your application level abstraction. If your abstraction deals
with text, for example, don't use std::string for that text; use
some user defined class. A class which almost certainly uses
std::string in its implementation, at least until the profiler
says otherwise, but a class which defines very exactly the
interface you need. This is a good general rule, as it keeps
your options open. Use std::string directly, or a typedef to
std::string, and you're locked in; use a user defined class with
a narrower interface, and you can change the implementation in
any way that conforms to the interface.
Yup.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?