>From: "Robert Klarer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Terje Slettebø wrote:
>
> > If run-time computation is ok, and that one only wants to avoid
dynamical
> > allocation, then one might do something like I used in another posting
in
> > this thread:
> >
> > template
> > class fixed_size_string;
> >
> > te
Beman Dawes wrote:
> 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.
I didn't want to prejudice the group with judgemental language like "ugly and
error prone." :-)
I certainly recognize
Terje Slettebø wrote:
> If run-time computation is ok, and that one only wants to avoid dynamical
> allocation, then one might do something like I used in another posting in
> this thread:
>
> template
> class fixed_size_string;
>
> template
> fixed_size_string operator+(const
> fixed_size_strin
>From: "Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Robert Klarer wrote:
> > > The syntax for declaring a static_string is unfortunate, but once it
has
> > > been declared, a static_string's interface is (almost*) the same as
that
> > > of a const std::string.
> > Yes, you right it's unfortunate and IMHO i
> Robert Klarer wrote:
> > The syntax for declaring a static_string is unfortunate, but once it has
> > been declared, a static_string's interface is (almost*) the same as that
> > of a const std::string.
> Yes, you right it's unfortunate and IMHO is not appropriate for a wide
use.
>
> >typede
Robert Klarer wrote:
> The syntax for declaring a static_string is unfortunate, but once it has
> been declared, a static_string's interface is (almost*) the same as that
> of a const std::string.
Yes, you right it's unfortunate and IMHO is not appropriate for a wide use.
>typedef boost::stati
