Thomas Menguy wrote:
Hi Bryan,
check the stl standared: http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/basic_string.html
static const size_type npos basic_string The largest possible value
of type size_type. That is, size_type(-1).
=> npos is a constant defined by basic_string, and now look at the
default constructor:
basic_string(const basic_string& s, size_type pos = 0, size_type n = npos)
so yes, for me have default equal to this is normal.... look at npos
in your xml and you will see its definition.
Hope this helps
Thomas
Yes, but since the class which contains the constructor which has the
argument which has the default is:
basic_string<wchar_t, std::char_traits<wchar_t>, std::allocator<wchar_t> >
Then shouldn't npos be identified as:
std::basic_string<wchar_t, td::char_traits<wchar_t>, std::allocator<wchar_t>
::npos
instead of :
std::basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::npos
???
In other words, shouldn't the type of npos be identified by the actual template
parameter values used in declaring the template instance in which npos is being
referenced, instead of by the variable names used in the template definition
itself?
Thanks,
Bryan
_______________________________________________
gccxml mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.gccxml.org/mailman/listinfo/gccxml
