|
|
Boost : |
From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-03 08:15:45
Re: signedness of an implementation detail:
(It seems to be that nature of c++ that minor details catalyse the most
momentous arguments)
It seems to me that:
* degski has a point that there may be some conceptual efficiency gain by
removing the unsigned restriction
* this would necessarily mean that the overall size of the static_string’s
memory footprint becomes implementation defined (since the inplementor may
now choose either a signed 16 bit word to represent the length of a string
with capacity 128 rather than an 8 bit word.
>From the point of view of users of this string type, I’d be inclined to
argue that the deterministic nature of the current implementation is
preferable.
My recommendation (for what it’s worth) is to ship as is, and if it can be
shown that there is a problem with this approach, raise an issue in the
GitHub repo with a real world example of a problem caused by the current
specification and evidence of how a switch to signed internal size solves
this.
R
-- Richard Hodges hodges.r_at_[hidden] office: +442032898513 home: +376841522 mobile: +376380212
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk