On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, James Lee wrote: > On 16/04/04, 12:56:09, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: > [aspell-devel] stings.hpp:
> Inefficiency aside, what causes the implicit type cast to ParmString? > If ParmString operator== didn't compare strings, and as far as > compilers go it needn't, it would be an error to use it implicitly. ... > > Yes it can. The standard string class does not give me the control I > > need. In particular there is no guarantee that the string is stored in a > > continuous area of memory, nor is there a way to get a mutable "char *" > > pointer. Amount other things. > > Some would say immutable strings are a feature. > > It seems a lot of effort is going into recreating what is part of > the standard library. As a matter of principle that makes me uneasy. I have my reasons. They are well thought out. I do not have time to justify my self to you. > > The other don't inherit from String because they are implemented > > differently. > > That would be the rationalisation I mentioned. Any reason why they > need implementing in different ways? Why can't Sting alone provide > what is needed? ParmString is really a proxy class for either a String or a const char *. See parm_string.hpp. -- http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org _______________________________________________ Aspell-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/aspell-devel
