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@gmail.com office: +442032898513 home: +376841522 mobile: +376380212