Le Lundi 1 Mai 2006 19:12, Cyrille Dunant a écrit : > On Monday 01 May 2006 18:51, Sébastien wrote: > > Le Lundi 1 Mai 2006 18:12, Cyrille Dunant a écrit : > > > On Monday 01 May 2006 18:04, Sébastien wrote: > > > > Le Lundi 1 Mai 2006 17:31, Cyrille Dunant a écrit : > > > > > > It's not lazyness, I talked about char* removal and the ellipsis > > > > > > problem with Stéphane Magnenat, he told me to look at boost since > > > > > > we already depend on it. If you have a better idea, fine, please > > > > > > expose it. Reimplement everything all the time isn't a good > > > > > > solution too but if you have an idea to replace xxxprintf wich is > > > > > > not a cut n paste of boost, I'm open (even if there is work as > > > > > > opposed to what you said) > > > > > > > > > > No, now, it is too late anyway, we already depend on boost, so we > > > > > might as well use it... > > > > > > > > > > Of course, _stripping_ the boost dependency would be a worthwhile > > > > > endeavour > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > I agree with you... > > > > I quickly looked to AINicowar and I can't figure out where boost is > > > > used... As a test I suppressed the include and all compiled fine, the > > > > game is working > > > > > > Odd. > > > > > > Well, If you really want to use boost, it is your call -- but if it is > > > in > > > > I don't really want to use boost, I asked for a printf replacement and > > someone told me to look at boost > > > > > fact _not_ used... But if it is only to replace printfs (even so as to > > > follow the Real True Path Of C++ Leading To Supreme Enlightenement), > > > could > > > > I don't follow the Real True Path Of C++ Leading To Supreme > > Enlightenement. > > you should, it is enlightening ;) > > > The fact is that some parts of glob code use old C char* and some other > > parts use C++ string. It could be a good thing to have something > > coherent. Currently, for some function calls you have the following : > > string my_string // A string > > myfunc(my_string.c_str()); // A char * > > in myfunc : > > myotherfunc(string(the_string_passed_in_argument) // A string, again ! > > the same append in myotherfunc, and so on... > > hmmm. Probably rewriting myfunc to take a std::string would be a good idea. > In fact a function overload would be optimal. From an "API easiness" point > of view... Yes... or no ;) I noticed that GCC get confused when you have some function overloading : func(char*, string) func(string, char*) Compilation is fine but execution... (look at a recent thread about StringTable on this ml...)
I started looking for a replacement for ellipsis since string can't be passed through it. We can always use c_str() but I stay on the idea that it is not really a good idea (except for c function), I think we should use string throughout the functions' chain > > I think the idea is "string everywhere except when the programmer will want > to write the argument explicitely" > > as in > > void manipulateString(string &) ; > > void printOnDebugOutput(char *) ; > > nct ? Yes, that's what he said... > > -- CFD > > > > _______________________________________________ > glob2-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel _______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
