From: Roberto Hinz (robhz786_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-09-14 16:15:28
I don't see a real need for the base class.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:05 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> Here is an example signature:
> string_view f (string_view input1, string_view input2,
> fixed_capacity_string_base& temp);
I would rather use span<char> or span<char, N> in this case.
> - The Traits template parameter might be a valid candidate for
> > removal. I certainly never needed it, but my guess is that
> > removing it makes only sense, if you also only support plain
> > char (i.e. no wchar or char32_t) as a character type.
> I can be perfectly happy supporting only `char`, but we could offer
> wchar and char32_t variants using explicit instantiation in the
> non-header-only configuration mode, and still get the benefits of
> separate compilation.
I like the ideia of removing Traits, but I would keep CharT. Don't see
any inconsistency in that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk