On 4/27/06, Kobi Cohen-Arazi <kobi.cohenarazi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Sebastian,

You are 100% right.
The return by reference is wrong. and the removeConst is absolutely not needed. It works just fine without. And I understand why adding & to the std::string is wrong.

So just a quick recap, to see if we have 100% of the solution:
There is no way to use directly the std::string::replace since get() is const member function.
We do need a replace wrapper, which unfortunately creating std::string instances.

Am I right here?

Thanks for your help!
Kobi.

On 4/27/06, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at > wrote:
Kobi Cohen-Arazi wrote:

> Will not work !
> Why adding the & hurts?
> Kobi.

Because you attempt to bind a non-const reference to a temporary object
(the return value of get(). The compiler refuses to do that.
The compiler doesn't catch another possibly problematic situation,
though, and that's replace's return by reference. You're returning a
reference to a function parameter, and that's generally not a good idea.

On the other hand, the removeConst function does absolutely nothing in
your program except create yet another copy of the string. get() already
returns a copy. The function is const, but its return value is not a
const reference.

Sebastian Redl
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users