On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote: >> On 14.10.2010 20:39, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: >>> The following is a somewhat naïve implementation, but does it jive >>> with your suggestion? >> >> Roughly yes, see the other comment. >> On reflection, though, I like the suggestion of returning an >> std::pair<std::string, bool>. Make a typedef of that so that users can >> declare return-value variables, and use it where it's absolutely >> necessary to know that it's not an empty string but a null string. Saves >> a lot of trouble with the string subclassing, too. And better than >> pulling in 90% of boost just to get a poor-man's replacement for null >> references. > > Yeah, after that little implementation exercise, and hearing here all > the nuances of subclassing std::string, I'm leaning in this direction > as well. Having a separate NullableString type would also help folks > know which strings are guaranteed to have values and which ones are > "optional" via the API. (I hope our C docs point this out explicitly, > too.)
Added something called ValidString in r1023863. Review welcome. -Hyrum
