kimgr added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/string_view:216
@@ +215,3 @@
+ basic_string_view(const _CharT* __s)
+ : __data(__s), __size(_Traits::length(__s)) {}
+
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> kimgr wrote:
> > I'm working from the paper at https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N3762.html,
> > and I find it a little sketchy on the policy for nullptrs.
> >
> > Since the ctor above accepts nullptr as long as the length is zero, would
> > it make sense to do that here too? That is, only call _Traits::length for
> > non-nullptr __s args?
> Reading from N4600: Requires: `[str, str + traits::length(str))` is a valid
> range.
>
> So, no - passing `nullptr` here is undefined.
>
OK, that feels more principled to me, anyway.
But the `(const char*, size_t)` constructor has the same requirement and it
*does* accept `nullptr`, provided the length is zero. I saw you had to get rid
of the assertion, but I feel like the constructor should probably not silently
accept `nullptr` for zero-sized strings. Or do you know if that's intentional?
Many StringRef/StringPiece implementations seem to have the same behavior.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21459
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
