On Wednesday 28 July 2010 08:04:10 Ross Finlayson wrote: > Specifically, looking at your suggestions: > > - C++ standard library string or custom string class (which one if any) > > - custom command line options parser class > > No, ... > because they don't fix bugs, nor do they improve (or even really > change) the code's API
In fact use of std::string instead of char* is both change and improvement of API. User of library would not need to worry about delete []. On my platform (Linux gcc 4.3) sizeof(std::string) == sizeof(char*), so it has the same efficiency when passed as argument or returned by value. The worst I have seen was 16 bytes on 32 bit HP-UX in pre-standard mode. > > (I'm also a bit wary about using some of the newer C++ features (such > as templates), because some people's compilers might not support > them. AFAIK templates and STL are supported Linux, Windows, MacOSX and Unix both using native C++ libraries and uclibc (uclibc++). I'm not sure about iphoneOS, qnx and alpha. Does anybody on list know? > Ditto for 'standard' C++ libraries, which might also make > applications too large for some embedded systems. Standard C++ libraries could sometimes become huge, but there are techniques to keep final binaries small. I've compared my custom string class against std::string. The resulting binaries differed by approx 100 bytes. The most valuable thing on standard library is that it is extensively tested. Best Regards David Stegbauer This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. _______________________________________________ live-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.live555.com/mailman/listinfo/live-devel
