Bjoern Milcke wrote:
Hi Stephan,
<http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66621> is a request
to add searchAndReplace functionality to rtl::OUString, giving the
following use case: "Loading strings from a resource file [...] often
requires to replace certain parts of the loaded string with
runtime-dependent content. For instance, a resource might contain an
error message string 'The object $object$ could not be found.', where
$object$ would be filled in at runtime."
Now, being the pain in the neck that I am, I wonder whether solving
the above via a hypothetic
newStr = oldStr.searchAndReplace("$object$", whatever);
would generally be useful. In general, some searchAndReplace would
not work at least in the following two scenarios:
1 When there is more than one token (e.g., "$object1$",I wouldn't
want to d "$object2$", ...) to replace in oldStr, and the replacements
may contain text that looks like one of the tokens (but must not be
replaced).
2 When there is an escape mechanism so that oldStr can contain text
that looks like a token but is not replaced with a token (e.g.,
"\$object1$" would not expand to "\"+whatever, but to verbatim
"$object1$").
IMO, a well-engineered framework to replace parts of resource strings
with dynamic content would allow for both multiple tokens and an
escape mechanism, so could not use the hypothetic rtl::OUString
searchAndReplace.
+1
So, *is* there need for rtl::OUString searchAndReplace?
IMO, no. Especially as I think we wanted to make the OUString const
anyway? AFAIK, the only method that modifies an OUString is operator+.
We should think about removing that and exploit the fact that OUStrings
can never change.
The hypothetical
newStr = oldStr.searchAndReplace("$object$", whatever);
would leave oldStr unchanged (I did not mention that explicitly).
BTW, replacing strings in resources usually means using the tools String
rather than OUString, anyway. So, this would be another argument for an
external helper function that may be offered for both string types
(calling a single implementation).
Although I would vote for an easy-to-use interface. The typical case is
replacing one substring. For this I would like to write a single
(suitably short ;-) ) line of code.
...which is probably hampered by the fact that there is not a single
(well-engineered, see above) convention for such placeholders in
resource strings, but various different ones.
O overall OOo architecture, where art thou?
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
