On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 09:50:30 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 15 September 2014 at 02:26:19 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
So, please fire away. I'd appreciate it if you used RCString
in lieu of string and note the differences. The closer we get
to parity in semantics, the better.
Thanks,
Andrei
***Blocker thoughts***
(unless I'm misunderstood)
- Does not provide Forward range iteration that I can find.
This makes it unuseable for algorithms:
find (myRCString, "hello"); //Nope
Also, adding "save" to make it forward might not be a good
idea, since it would also mean it becomes an RA range (which it
isn't).
No, RA is not implied by forward.
- Does not provide any way to (even "unsafely") extract a raw
array. Makes it difficult to interface with existing functions.
It would also be important for "RCString aware" functions to be
properly optimized (eg memchr for searching etc...)
Another perfect use case for borrowing...
***Extra thoughts***
There have been requests for non auto-decoding strings. Maybe
this would be a good opportunity for "RCXUString" ?
Yes. I'm surprised by this proposal, because I thought Walter was
totally opposed to a dedicated string type. If it now becomes
acceptable, it's a good opportunity for moving away for
auto-decoding.
