Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:
Holger Brunn holger.brunn@stud.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote:
I think something should be done to fix the "assign cString to itself" case, even though this is very unlikely. This does go wrong with the current code, even with the copy constructor added.
Okay, now as all seems to be said, here is a patch that checks for that case (that may happen when working with references/pointers to cStrings), leaving Klaus with the decision whether it's useful to have it or not.
why not just:
typedef std::string cString;
or:
class cString : public std::string { ... };
i really can't understand all this messing with a datatype allready implemented elsewhere. what is so special about cString that other string implementations do not have?
AFAIR it is because of Klaus disliking standard stuff like stl, utf-8,gettext , ntpl and so on.
regards, gunnar