>There's already been some discussion of this library under the thread >"Proposal: strings as template parameters," but static_string hasn't >been the subject of its own thread, so I'm starting this one. I'd like >to solicit opinions about this project. Is it worthwhile? > >The purpose of the static_string library is to offer an alternative to >string literals and the standard type const std::string. A >static_string uses no dynamically allocated memory, and is more >efficient at execution time than either string literals or >basic_strings.
Yes, agreed. That would be useful. IIRC, the C++ committee's performance working groups has talked about such a string in the past.
But...
>The syntax for declaring a static_string is unfortunate... > > boost::static_string<'s', 't', 'a', 't', 'i', 'c', '_'> StrType1;
Unfortunate? Is that one of those understatement jokes Canadians are known for? I'd say it is way worse that "unfortunate" - it is ugly and error prone.
Lack of internationalization support is also a serious concern.
There are questions that come to mind:
* Can you come up with a small, workable language extension that eases those problems?
* Can you come up with an alternate design that gives up a tiny bit of efficiency (one pointer indirection perhaps) but then allows reasonable construction and internationalization?
Wondering-out-loud,
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
