Boost logo

Boost :

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-18 18:00:34

Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:

> I've been working on a small library - an immutable C++ string. Now it
> is in usable state and has been put in use in a couple of real
> projects. Although it needs further polishing, I would like to know is
> there any interest in such a library?
> Here is the link:

First, I'll say that yes, I am very interested in a library such as
this. Second, let me say that "const_string<>" and "immutable string"
don't seem like the right terms to me. The fact that you can call
operator?=() and append() on it tell me that there is little that is
"const" or "immutable" about it. It seems to me that "cow_string<>"
would be more appropriate, but perhaps others have different opinions.

Without taking a super-deep look at the code, I will say that it looks
fairly clean and appears to appropriately use modern techniques. A
small detail is that I would tend to call const_string_storage a policy,
since that is basically how it is being used. You could call it a
StoragePolicy for the string. Also, types ending in _t tend to be
reserved for typedefs of fundamental types. By convention, we usually
name template parameters with Capitalized names. charT, Allocator,
StoragePolicy, etc.

I suppose its not completely a COW string, since you don't support the
full set of mutating operations. However, some more documentation would
be nice. In particular, I would like to see guarantees about size and
performance as compared to basic_string<>, etc.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at