From: Krystian Stasiowski (sdkrystian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-29 18:50:08
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:57 AM Zach Laine via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Could you explain why the fixed_string API is not constexpr? Is it for
> C++11 compatability? Could you also explain how this meets the constexpr
> use case goal?
The library support down to C++11 when using boost, or C++17 at minimum in
standalone mode. As for why the lack of constexpr, it simply can be done
> Would it be unreasonable to add op+ back in for operands of the same type?
> There's no difficulty determining the size of fixed_string<8>("foo") +
> fixed_string<8>("bar"), right? That's no different
> from fixed_string<8>("foo") + "bar", which *is* supported.
There is no difficulty in determining the size, but there is the problem
that the size of the resulting string will be irrespective of the number of
characters contained within, which is not a problem for a string literal.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk