Hi Noel,
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:17 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
> It just seems to me that we could easily enough steal a bit from the
> length field to indicate that the buffer is immutable, and then we could
> reduce our complexity by eliminating OUStringBuffer.
We already steal bits from the ref-count for magic like this: static
strings, and interned strings ;-)
The question is - would it be more obvious if:
void method(rtl::OUString &rFoo, rtl::OUString &rBaa)
{
rFoo += "foo"; // no exception it's mutable.
rBaa += "baa"; // exception because it's immutable.
}
:-) i assume not. OTOH - I too am not a huge fan of the sal string
classes for general usability - but I've not done a ton of work with
them recently to be fair.
ATB,
Michael.
--
[email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
