Julian Foad wrote: > THE "STRING" CLASS IS VERY EFFICIENT! This is only sort of true. The string class is as efficient a general-purpose, arbitrary-length, arbitrary-lifespan data handler library as you can find. :)
The problem is that such a beast is just going to be slow, period. Returning a string from a function requires that it be allocated in the heap, used, and then thrown back into the heap immediately. That's a round trip through the memory allocator for every such function call, which is going to be much, much slower than returning a static pointer. This is not surprising, because it's also much more robust than returning a static pointer. I'm not sure that there's a good answer here. We could consider "interning" constant strings like property paths into constant references that don't need allocation. But stuff like getStringValue() is always going to have to allocate a new string if we want to do this robustly. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
