From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-06 15:54:14
At 05:58 PM 3/5/2003, Robert Klarer wrote:
>There's already been some discussion of this library under the thread
>"Proposal: strings as template parameters," but static_string hasn't
>been the subject of its own thread, so I'm starting this one. I'd like
>to solicit opinions about this project. Is it worthwhile?
>The purpose of the static_string library is to offer an alternative to
>string literals and the standard type const std::string. A
>static_string uses no dynamically allocated memory, and is more
>efficient at execution time than either string literals or
Yes, agreed. That would be useful. IIRC, the C++ committee's performance
working groups has talked about such a string in the past.
>The syntax for declaring a static_string is unfortunate...
> boost::static_string<'s', 't', 'a', 't', 'i', 'c', '_'> StrType1;
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
Lack of internationalization support is also a serious concern.
There are questions that come to mind:
* Can you come up with a small, workable language extension that eases
* Can you come up with an alternate design that gives up a tiny bit of
efficiency (one pointer indirection perhaps) but then allows reasonable
construction and internationalization?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk